Bredemeier v. State of Nebraska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RAQUEL BREDEMEIER,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.
8:25CV610
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Raquel Bredemeier’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filing No. 1, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 and filed on October 10, 2025, with the filing fee paid on October 30,
2025. After initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court will dismiss the petition
without prejudice because Petitioner has not exhausted her state court
remedies.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 7, 2023, Petitioner pled no contest to a charge of motor
vehicle homicide, a Class IIA felony. State v. Bredemeier, No. A-24-117, 2024
WL 4127961, at *1 (Neb. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2024), review denied (Nov. 21,
2024). She was sentenced on February 20, 2024, to 18 to 20 years in prison.
Filing No. 1 at 1. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal
on September 20, 2024, but remanded “to determine a period of revocation as
required by statute.” Bredemeier, 2024 WL 4127961, at *3. The mandate was
8:25-cv-00610-JMG-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
entered on December 11, 2024. Petitioner did not file a motion for post-
conviction review in the state courts.1
As set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254:
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall
not be granted unless it appears that—
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in
the courts of the State; or
(B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective
process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective
to protect the rights of the applicant. . . .
(c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the
remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning
of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to
raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
The United States Supreme Court has explained the habeas exhaustion
requirement as follows:
Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state
courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional
claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts . . .
state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to
resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round
of the State’s established appellate review process.
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). A state prisoner must
therefore “fairly present” the substance of each federal constitutional claim to
the state courts before seeking federal habeas relief. Id. at 844. In Nebraska,
1 This Court has been afforded access to the computerized record keeping system (JUSTICE) for the
Nebraska state courts. The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records related to this case in
State v. Bredemeier, No. CR21-35, District Court of Jefferson County, Nebraska. See Stutzka v.
McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of judicial opinions
and public records); Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (providing for judicial notice of adjudicative facts).
Nebraska's judicial records may be retrieved on-line through the JUSTICE site,
https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi.
8:25-cv-00610-JMG-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 2 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
“one complete round” ordinarily means that each § 2254 claim must have been
presented in an appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, and then in a petition
for further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court if the Court of Appeals rules
against the petitioner. See Akins v. Kenney, 410 F.3d 451, 454– 55 (8th Cir.
2005).
To be clear, exhaustion of available state postconviction relief is a
prerequisite to seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As
explained in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982):
[O]ur interpretation of §§ 2254(b), (c) provides a simple and clear
instruction to potential litigants: before you bring any claims to
federal court, be sure that you first have taken each one to state
court. Just as pro se petitioners have managed to use the federal
habeas machinery, so too should they be able to master this
straightforward exhaustion requirement.
Here, the petition’s allegations and Petitioner’s state court records
clearly establish that Petitioner did not exhaust her available state court
remedies before filing her habeas case in this forum. Petitioner’s petition for
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is premature and subject to sua sponte dismissal
by this Court. Rose, 455 U.S. at 520; Akins, 410 F.3d at 455.
Petitioner does not allege that her habeas petition is a “mixed” petition.
The failure to do so categorically rules out relief under Rhines v. Weber, 544
U.S. 269, 276 (2005) since Rhines involves only cases with mixed petitions.
McLemore v. Frakes, No. 8:18CV567, 2019 WL 2358433, at *3 n.2 (D. Neb. June
4, 2019) (citing Charles v. Payne, No. 4:17 CV 2494 CDP, 2018 WL 3208551, at
*2 (E.D. Mo. June 29, 2018)). “A ‘mixed petition’ is one where at least one claim
is exhausted but another is unexhausted.” Id. Even if the Court could exercise
discretion to stay these proceedings pursuant to Rhines, a stay would not be
appropriate in this case as Petitioner’s access to federal habeas review will not
be prejudiced if this case is dismissed. The one-year statute of limitations has
8:25-cv-00610-JMG-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 3 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
not expired. Dismissing this federal petition for habeas relief will not prejudice
Petitioner’s ability, upon exhaustion of her available state remedies, to file a
timely petition for federal habeas review as appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s habeas petition must be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state postconviction
remedies.
Petitioner has requested appointment of counsel. Filing No. 3. “There is
no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases.” Phillips
v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006). A district court “may
request an attorney to represent” an indigent civil litigant, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1), but it has a “good deal of discretion” in deciding whether to do so,
Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898, 909 (8th Cir. 2011). “Relevant criteria
for determining whether counsel should be requested include the factual and
legal complexity of the case, the plaintiff’s ability to investigate the facts and
to present the claims, and the presence or absence of conflicting testimony.”
Recca v. Omaha Police Dep’t, 859 F. App’x 3, 4 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing Davis v.
Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996)).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and finds there is no current
need to appoint counsel. Any counsel appointed by this Court would assist only
in this federal case. Since the case will be dismissed, counsel will not be
appointed.
Lastly, a petitioner cannot appeal an adverse ruling on her petition for
writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 unless she 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, 484–85 (2000). The Court has applied the
8:25-cv-00610-JMG-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 4 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

5
appropriate standard and determined that Petitioner is not entitled to a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Filing No. 1, is dismissed
without prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued.
2. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel, Filing No. 3, is
denied.
3. A judgment will be entered by separate document.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00610-JMG-PRSE Doc # 9 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 5 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>