Nadeem v. State, 298 Neb. 329

Background

In 2009, Nadeem, then 22, met a 14‑year‑old girl in a public library; police later arranged a controlled call and arrested him when he returned to the library as requested.
Nadeem was convicted (2010) of attempted first‑degree and attempted third‑degree sexual assault of a minor, served part of his sentence, and later had those convictions vacated and remanded for a new trial on grounds including ineffective assistance and denial of an entrapment instruction.
After completing his sentence, Nadeem sued the State under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act alleging actual innocence (and asserting entrapment), seeking damages under the State Tort Claims Act.
The State moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing entrapment or lack of intent does not establish the required element of actual innocence; the district court granted the motion.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, holding Nadeem’s complaint alleged lack of intent and failure to take a substantial step, but the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the complaint failed to plead actual innocence as required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑4603(3) and affirmed dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals could consider its prior criminal‑opinion when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal	Nadeem cited the prior opinion in his complaint and argued the opinion is part of the public record embraced by the pleadings	State argued the prior opinion is necessarily embraced by the complaint and thus may be considered on dismissal	Court: The prior Court of Appeals opinion was embraced by the pleadings and could be considered, but only limited portions were relevant
Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded "actual innocence" under § 29‑4603(3)	Nadeem alleged he lacked requisite intent and did not take a substantial step toward the crime; he also alleged entrapment and cited facts about the initial innocent conversation	State argued that lack of intent or entrapment does not equate to actual innocence (which requires absence of facts establishing commission of the crime) and that conclusory allegations are insufficient	Court: Complaint insufficiently pled actual innocence; legal conclusions and trial‑court conclusions were disregarded, so dismissal was proper
Effect of vacated conviction on wrongful‑conviction claim (res judicata)	Nadeem relied on vacation/remand as satisfying statutory element; argued prior conviction findings should not block his claim	State suggested prior appellate finding of sufficient evidence undermined actual‑innocence claim	Court: Vacated judgment lacks res judicata effect; prior findings do not preclude pleading actual innocence, but do not excuse the need to plead it adequately
Pleading standard on Rule 12(b)(6) for wrongful conviction claims	Nadeem asserted notice pleading sufficed to survive dismissal	State urged that pleadings must allege facts showing absence of elements (actual innocence), not mere conclusions	Court: Under de novo review, courts accept factual allegations and reasonable inferences, but ignore legal conclusions; Nadeem’s factual allegations did not show actual innocence

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955 (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 285 Neb. 974 (documents embraced by the pleadings may be considered on dismissal)
Hess v. State, 287 Neb. 559 (distinguishing legal innocence from actual innocence)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (actual innocence defined in colloquial sense)
Kellogg v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 269 Neb. 40 (courts may ignore legal conclusions in pleading analysis)
State on behalf of Hopkins v. Batt, 253 Neb. 852 (res judicata elements)