Moss v. Jeffreys

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NICHOLAS M. MOSS,
Petitioner,
vs.
ROB JEFFREYS,
Respondent.
8:20CV474
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The matter is before the Court on a motion for clarification (the “Motion”) filed by
Petitioner Nicholas M. Moss (“Petitioner”) seeking clarification regarding this Court’s
March 4, 2026, Memorandum and Order which granted the writ in part and ordered the
State of Nebraska to grant Petitioner a new trial in 90 days from its issuance. Filing No.
75 (referencing Filing No. 71). In his Motion Petitioner inquires as to whether the
requirement that the State of Nebraska commence a new trial in this Court’s March 4
Memorandum and Order means that his conviction is “overturned and reversed.” Id. The
Motion shall be granted and clarification provided herein.
In Petitioner’s case this Court issued what is referred to as a conditional writ,
providing the State of Nebraska a 90-day opportunity to cure their constitutional errors.
See Gentry v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687, 692 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481
U.S. 770, 775 (1987) (explaining that via the issuance of a conditional writ “courts may
delay the release of a successful habeas petitioner in order to provide the State an
opportunity to correct the constitutional violation found by the court.”). While this Court
retains jurisdiction over Petitioner’s case to allow execution of a lawful judgment vacating
the underlying conviction and sentence and ordering Petitioner’s release, this Court may
8:20-cv-00474-JFB-PRSE Doc # 76 Filed: 03/20/26 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
only do so if the state fails to comply with the March 4 Memorandum and Order requiring
the State to provide Petitioner with a new trial in the time allotted. Id. (describing the
process of the conversion of a conditional writ to an “absolute” writ).
Therefore, this Court’s granting of the conditional writ of habeas corpus in
Petitioner’s case did not immediately imply that Petitioner’s underlying conviction and
sentence are overturned or otherwise reversed. Instead, this Court’s issuance of the
conditional writ placed a hold on Petitioner’s right to relief from all direct and collateral
consequences of the conviction pending the State’s exercise of the option to provide
Petitioner a new trial. Only if the State fails to comply may the writ convert to an absolute
one, allowing this Court to vacate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence and order his
release.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: The Motion, Filing No. 75, is granted and
clarification provided.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Court
8:20-cv-00474-JFB-PRSE Doc # 76 Filed: 03/20/26 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>