Sandoval v. Ricketts

302 Neb. 138 (2019) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · January 25, 2019 · No. No. S-18-390

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a declaratory and injunctive action brought by death row inmates challenging the repeal of legislation abolishing Nebraska’s death penalty. The court held that the plaintiffs had other equally serviceable remedies, including postconviction proceedings or a pending direct appeal, and therefore could not maintain the declaratory judgment action. The court did not reach the remaining assignments of error or the cross-appeal.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Heavican, C.J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Funke, J.; Papik, J.; Pirtle, Judge; Riedmann, Judge
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
January 25, 2019
Docket number
No. S-18-390
Procedural posture
Eight death-row inmates appealed the Lancaster County District Court's dismissal of their declaratory-judgment and injunctive-relief complaint for failure to state a claim. Certain defendants cross-appealed regarding alleged misjoinder. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and did not reach the remaining assignments of error or the cross-appeal.
Standard of review
Jurisdictional issues not involving factual disputes are reviewed as matters of law independently of the trial court. An order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo, accepting the complaint's allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Precedential value
Published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Jose Sandoval, Roy L. Ellis, Jorge Galindo, Nikko Jenkins, John L. Lotter, Raymond Mata, Marco E. Torres, Eric F. Vela v. John Peter Ricketts, Governor of the State of Nebraska, Don Stenberg, Nebraska State Treasurer, Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General, Scott R. Frakes, Judy Glassburner, Aimee Melton, Bob Evnen, Arthur L. Gales, Jeffrey Hessler, Carey Dean Moore
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

declaratory judgmentpost-conviction reliefmotions to dismisssubject matter jurisdictionappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate proceduredeclaratory judgmentspost-conviction reliefconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the appeal.
  2. Whether the inmates could maintain a declaratory-judgment action when direct appeal or postconviction remedies were available to challenge their death sentences.
  3. Whether the court needed to reach the inmates' remaining claims concerning the referendum, separation of powers, sentence modification, and amendment of the complaint.
  4. Whether certain defendants were misjoined.

Holdings

  1. The court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the declaratory-judgment action and therefore could address whether the complaint stated a claim for relief.
  2. The inmates could not maintain their declaratory-judgment action because they had other equally serviceable remedies: a pending direct appeal for Jenkins and postconviction actions for the other inmates.

Key quotations

We conclude that the inmates have equally serviceable remedies and accordingly affirm the district court’s dismissal of their declaratory judgment action. (302 Neb. 144)

Factual background

Eight inmates convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death challenged the repeal of Nebraska Legislative Bill 268, which had abolished the death penalty. After voters approved a referendum repealing L.B. 268, the inmates filed a declaratory-judgment action asserting that the referendum was invalid and that their sentences had become life sentences before the referendum took effect. At the time of suit, Jenkins had a pending direct appeal, and the other inmates had filed postconviction actions raising related challenges to their death sentences.

Procedural history

The inmates sought declarations that the referendum repealing Nebraska's legislative abolition of the death penalty was invalid and that their death sentences had been converted to life imprisonment. The Lancaster County District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the inmates had equally serviceable remedies and that their other theories failed to state claims. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on the alternative-remedy ground.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…