Bass v. Waugh et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TIGUE N. BASS IV,
Petitioner,
vs.
BRYAN WAUGH, Superintendent
Colonel of the Nebraska State Patrol;
Respondent.
8:25CV599
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 6, 2025, Petitioner Tigue N. Bass IV filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. Filing No. 1. Upon preliminary review, the Court concluded
it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. As the Court explained,
Petitioner was released from custody in May of 2025, and while he remained
obligated to register as a sex offender, the requirement to register as a sex
offender is not considered “in custody” for the purposes of requesting federal
habeas relief. Fulkerson v. Ricketts, No. 4:22CV3162, 2023 WL 1868888, at *2
(D. Neb. Jan. 3, 2023). The Court explained that if the sex offender registration
requirement was Petitioner’s sole basis for claiming he was “in custody,” the
Court cannot consider his habeas petition. Petitioner was granted leave to file
an amended petition. Filing No. 3.
The amended petition was timely filed on November 14, 2025, naming
Colonel Bryan D. Waugh, Superintendent, Nebraska State Patrol as the
respondent. Filing No. 5. The amended petition confirms that Petitioner was
discharged from custody on May 11, 2025. Filing No. 5 at 13. Petitioner again
8:25-cv-00599-JMG-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 11/26/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
asks this Court to set aside his “unlawful No Contest Conviction for First
Degree Sexual Assault” and remove the sex offender registry requirement from
his sentence. Filing No. 5 at 3.
As explained in Fulkerson, “once the sentence imposed for a conviction
has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that conviction are not
themselves sufficient to render an individual ‘in custody’ for the purposes of a
habeas attack upon it.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989). The
requirement to register as a sex offender is a collateral consequence of a
conviction, and it does not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2254’s requirement that the
petitioner be “in custody” at the time he files a habeas petition. Fulkerson, 2023
WL 1868888, at *2 (collecting cases).
Since Petitioner is not in custody, this Court cannot consider his habeas
petition, and his request for federal habeas relief must be dismissed.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner cannot appeal an adverse ruling on his petition for writ of
habeas corpus under § 2254 unless he is granted a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). The
standards for certificates (1) where the district court reaches the merits or (2)
where the district court rules on procedural grounds are set forth in Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-485 (2000). The Court has applied the appropriate
standard and determined Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Tigue N. Bass IV’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
8:25-cv-00599-JMG-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 11/26/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
2. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter.
3. The Court will enter a separate judgment.
4. The petitioner’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, Filing No. 4,
is denied as moot.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00599-JMG-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 11/26/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>