Buggs v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 432

Marvin E. Buggs, convicted in 2001 of second-degree forgery (with habitual enhancement) and manslaughter, is serving consecutive sentences; his mandatory release and parole eligibility dates fall in June 2021.
On August 31, 2016, Buggs submitted a motion to postpone fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2824 and presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the district court clerk.
The district court treated Buggs’ motion as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), denied the motion, and found the underlying habeas petition frivolous.
Buggs appealed the denial and the district court’s treatment of his fee motion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo the legal questions and reversed, holding § 29-2824 bars prepayment of filing fees for habeas petitions challenging criminal custody and thus IFP findings were inapplicable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 29-2824 motion to postpone fees must be treated as a motion for IFP	Buggs: § 29-2824 obviates prepayment; no IFP needed to file habeas	Frakes: District court applied IFP standards and denied relief as frivolous	Reversed: § 29-2824 forbids prepayment; IFP status not required; motion was mischaracterized
Whether the petition was properly dismissed as frivolous at the filing-fee stage	Buggs: petition should be filed and then reviewed on its merits	Frakes: district court concluded petition frivolous and denied fee relief	Remanded: court must file petition (if needed) and examine whether it states a cause of action; frivolousness review under § 25-2301.02 is distinct

Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016) (treating fee requirements and habeas filing procedure under state law)
Dixon v. Hann, 160 Neb. 316, 70 N.W.2d 80 (Neb. 1955) (duty of court to examine habeas petition for cause of action)
O'Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 863 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 2015) (discussing habeas procedure and filing requirements)