State ex rel. Rhiley v. Nebraska State Patrol
917 N.W.2d 903
Neb.2018Background
- In 1991 Rhiley was arrested in Nebraska on a Wyoming burglary warrant; Wyoming prosecutors later dismissed the charge but the NSP Criminal Identification Division (CID) was not notified.
- In 2016 Rhiley discovered the NSP’s criminal-history report still reflected the 1991 arrest without a dismissal and requested correction; NSP directed him to the arresting agency and the Hall County Attorney.
- Rhiley sued under Nebraska’s Criminal History Act, seeking mandamus to compel the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) to remove the arrest from the public record; he voluntarily dismissed all defendants except the NSP.
- Shortly after suit was filed the NSP removed the arrest record; the NSP moved for judgment asserting sovereign immunity, mootness, and that mandamus was unavailable because an adequate legal remedy existed.
- The district court rejected sovereign immunity, but granted judgment for NSP on mootness and adequacy of remedy; Rhiley appealed and NSP cross‑appealed the jurisdictional sovereign‑immunity question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29‑3528 waives the State’s sovereign immunity for suits against a state agency to enforce the Criminal History Act | § 29‑3528 authorizes actions “including but not limited to … mandamus” against “state agency,” which should be read as waiving immunity | § 29‑3528 does not expressly waive sovereign immunity and contains no unavoidable implication of waiver; statutes waiving immunity must be explicit | Held: § 29‑3528 does not expressly or impliedly waive sovereign immunity for actions against a state agency; no waiver found |
| Whether Nebraska mandamus statute (§ 25‑2156) waives sovereign immunity for actions against state agencies | Mandamus authorization permits suits to compel agencies (inferior tribunals) so immunity should be waived | Mandamus statutes do not demonstrate legislative intent to waive sovereign immunity for state agencies | Held: Court adheres to Henderson — general mandamus statutes do not waive sovereign immunity for actions against state agencies |
| Whether the mandamus claim was moot or barred by adequate remedy | Rhiley argued relief remained appropriate; contest on adequacy of administrative remedies and mootness | NSP argued removal of the record rendered the action moot and administrative/regulatory procedures provided an adequate remedy precluding mandamus | District court found mootness/adequate remedy; appellate court did not reach merits after finding lack of jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Department of Correctional Services, 256 Neb. 314 (1999) (general mandamus statutes do not waive sovereign immunity for state agencies)
- Steinke v. Lautenbaugh, 263 Neb. 652 (2002) (mandamus against public officer to remedy unauthorized acts is not a suit against the state)
- Amend v. Nebraska Public Service Commission, 298 Neb. 617 (2018) (statutory waivers of sovereign immunity strictly construed; waiver only by express language or overwhelming implication)
- Shear v. State, 117 Neb. 865 (1929) (Nebraska Constitution’s provision that the state may sue and be sued is not self‑executing)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (state sovereign immunity is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty independent of the Eleventh Amendment)