Nadeem v. State, 298 Neb. 329

Background

Mohammed Nadeem was convicted in 2010 of attempted first- and third-degree sexual assault of a 14-year-old based on an encounter and a later controlled call/meeting arranged by police; he served part of his sentence.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals vacated Nadeem’s convictions and ordered a new trial on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of an entrapment instruction; the convictions were thus not final for res judicata purposes.
In 2015 Nadeem sued the State under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act, alleging actual innocence (among other required statutory elements) and claiming entrapment.
The State moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6), arguing Nadeem’s pleadings did not adequately allege actual innocence (legal entrapment allegations insufficient to show actual innocence).
The district court granted the motion and dismissed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the complaint’s allegations were sufficient under notice pleading standards; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that after excluding legal conclusions and conclusions drawn from the prior criminal-opinion, Nadeem failed to plead facts showing actual innocence as required by statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Appeals could consider its prior criminal-opinion when reviewing a § 6-1112(b)(6) dismissal	Nadeem relied on the opinion in his complaint and argued the court should not treat it as beyond the pleadings	State argued the prior opinion is part of the public record and "necessarily embraced by the pleadings," so it may be considered	Court: The prior opinion is embraced by the complaint and may be considered, but only limited portions are relevant
Whether Nadeem sufficiently pled "actual innocence" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4603(3)	Nadeem alleged lack of requisite intent and facts (e.g., initial innocent conversation) supporting that he was not guilty of the attempted offenses	State argued entrapment or lack of intent allegations cannot substitute for pleading absence of facts that are prerequisites for the crime—i.e., actual innocence	Court: Rejected Nadeem; pleadings (minus legal conclusions and quoted conclusions from the criminal opinion) do not allege absence of facts required for guilt, so actual innocence not sufficiently pled; dismissal affirmed
Whether vacatur of the conviction prevents res judicata from barring the wrongful conviction claim	Nadeem argued vacatur allows relitigation and pursuit of statutory claim	State contended prior appellate finding of sufficient evidence should foreclose actual innocence claim	Court: Vacatur deprives the prior judgment of conclusive effect; res judicata does not bar the statutory claim at this stage
Pleadings standard applicable to wrongful conviction claims	Nadeem urged liberal notice pleading — that factual allegations alleging lack of intent suffice to survive dismissal	State urged courts may ignore legal conclusions and must require factual allegations supporting statutory elements, including actual innocence	Court: Apply de novo review; courts must ignore legal conclusions and require factual allegations sufficient to plead actual innocence under statute

Key Cases Cited

Hess v. State, 287 Neb. 559 (Neb. 2014) (distinguishes legal innocence from actual innocence; defines actual innocence as absence of facts prerequisite to conviction)
DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 285 Neb. 974 (Neb. 2013) (materials embraced by the pleadings and public records may be considered on motion to dismiss)
Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1992) (discussion of actual innocence as convicting the wrong person)
Kellogg v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 269 Neb. 40 (Neb. 2005) (courts may ignore legal conclusions and unsupported inferences when evaluating pleadings)
Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955 (Neb. 2017) (standard of review for dismissal under § 6-1112(b)(6))