Nadeem v. State
298 Neb. 329
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Mohammed Nadeem was convicted of attempted first‑ and third‑degree sexual assault of a minor based on events beginning with a library encounter in 2009; he completed part of his sentence before relief on appeal.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals vacated Nadeem’s convictions and remanded for a new trial in 2013 based on ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of an entrapment instruction; the jury verdict was not given res judicata effect after vacation.
- In 2015 Nadeem sued the State under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act seeking damages, alleging actual innocence (including entrapment) and that he did not fabricate evidence or commit perjury.
- The State moved to dismiss under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6‑1112(b)(6), arguing Nadeem’s complaint failed to plead actual innocence (entrapment cannot establish actual innocence). The district court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, focusing solely on the face of the complaint and treating alleged lack of intent as sufficient to plead actual innocence.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the complaint failed to plead 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 evaluating a motion to dismiss | Nadeem relied on the opinion in his complaint and argued the court should be confined to the complaint’s allegations | State argued the prior opinion is part of the public record and "necessarily embraced" by the complaint and thus may be considered | Court: Prior opinion was embraced by the complaint and may be considered, but only limited portions are relevant |
| Whether the complaint sufficiently pled statutory actual innocence under § 29‑4603(3) | Nadeem alleged lack of intent, entrapment, and factual assertions that he was "entirely innocent" | State argued that lack of intent/entrapment are legal defenses and that Nadeem’s non‑conclusory factual allegations do not show absence of the facts prerequisite to the offense | Court: Complaint fails to plead actual innocence; conclusory allegations and quotations of the appellate opinion are insufficient |
| Whether a vacated conviction precludes pleading wrongful‑conviction claim (res judicata concern) | Nadeem contended vacatur removes res judicata effect and allows the wrongful‑conviction claim to proceed | State suggested prior findings of sufficient evidence undermine an actual innocence claim | Court: Vacatur deprived the prior judgment of conclusive res judicata effect; however, vacatur does not excuse the statutory pleading requirement of actual innocence |
| Pleading standard on motion to dismiss | Nadeem invoked notice pleading—allegations need only be short and plain | State insisted the complaint must plead facts showing actual innocence, not mere legal conclusions | Court: Accept allegations as true but may disregard legal conclusions; plaintiff must plead facts supporting actual innocence under Hess and § 29‑4603 |
Key Cases Cited
- DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 285 Neb. 974 (consideration of public‑record materials and documents embraced by pleadings on dismissal)
- Hess v. State, 287 Neb. 559 (distinguishing legal innocence and actual innocence; actual innocence requires absence of facts prerequisite to conviction)
- State v. Nadeem, 284 Neb. 513 (prior Nebraska Supreme Court criminal opinion arising from Nadeem’s case cited and embraced in the complaint)
- Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955 (standard of review for dismissal: accept complaint allegations as true and draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (illustrative definition of actual innocence as conviction of the wrong person)