Sandoval v. Ricketts, 922 N.W.2d 222

Eight Nebraska death-row inmates (Sandoval, Ellis, Galindo, Jenkins, Lotter, Mata, Torres, Vela) sued seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2015 law abolishing the death penalty (L.B. 268) was not repealed by referendum and an injunction preventing executions or steps toward execution.
L.B. 268 was passed May 27, 2015, and would have taken effect August 30, 2015; opponents organized a referendum effort and submitted petitions; the Secretary of State later verified sufficient signatures to suspend the law and the referendum vote repealed L.B. 268.
Plaintiffs alleged the referendum was invalid because executive-branch actors (including Governor Ricketts and Treasurer Stenberg) improperly participated, and also raised a technical defect claim about sponsor affidavits.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning plaintiffs had other equally serviceable remedies (postconviction relief or direct appeal), and also found plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers and sentence-modification theories deficient.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed solely on the ground that equally serviceable remedies were available and therefore declaratory relief was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether declaratory relief was permissible	Sandoval: declaratory judgment and injunction were appropriate to declare the referendum invalid and bar executions	Ricketts et al.: plaintiffs filed the wrong procedure in the wrong court; they should use criminal postconviction or direct appeal remedies	Held: Dismissed — declaratory relief unavailable because equally serviceable remedies (postconviction or direct appeal) existed
Whether the filing of unverified signatures suspended L.B. 268 on Aug 26, 2015	Plaintiffs: filing did not suspend the law and punishments converted to life on Aug 30	Defendants: verified-signature process suspended the law; referendum later repealed it	Not reached — court disposed on alternative ground (equally serviceable remedies)
Whether executive-branch participation in the referendum violated separation of powers	Plaintiffs: Ricketts and Stenberg’s involvement made referendum invalid	Defendants: no viable separation-of-powers claim	Not reached — court did not decide on merits after finding procedural bar
Whether L.B. 268 converted death sentences to life such that legislature lacked power to modify sentences	Plaintiffs: sentences converted on Aug 30, 2015 and could not be reinstated by referendum process	Defendants: Legislature/ referendum process controlled effect of law	Not reached — court did not reach this substantive claim

State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 (Neb. 2018) (criminal postconviction and direct-appeal context cited in jurisdictional discussion)
Chafin v. Wisconsin Province Society of Jesus, 301 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2018) (related precedent cited in procedural context)
State ex rel. Rhiley v. Nebraska State Patrol, 301 Neb. 241 (Neb. 2018) (procedural authority cited)
Hall v. State, 264 Neb. 151 (Neb. 2002) (holding declaratory relief improper where postconviction remedy available)
State v. Dunster, 270 Neb. 773 (Neb. 2005) (refusing to create new collateral procedure where postconviction relief is available)