Buggs v. Frakes
298 Neb. 432
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Marvin E. Buggs is serving sentences from 2001 (forgery with habitual enhancement and manslaughter); mandatory release and parole eligibility dates coincide in June 2021.
- On August 31, 2016, Buggs submitted a motion to postpone fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2824 and presented a habeas corpus petition to the district court clerk.
- The district court treated the fee-postponement motion as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and denied it, concluding Buggs' habeas petition was frivolous.
- Buggs appealed the denial, arguing the court erred in applying IFP standards and in finding the petition frivolous.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held that § 29-2824 prohibits prepayment of fees for habeas petitions challenging criminal custody, so prepayment or IFP status was not required to file.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, instructing the district court to file the petition (if not already filed) and to review it on the merits for whether it states a cause of action (a distinct inquiry from frivolousness under § 25-2301.02).
Issues
| Issue | Buggs' Argument | Frakes' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly treated Buggs' motion to postpone fees as a motion to proceed IFP | Buggs argued § 29-2824 bars prepayment of fees for habeas petitions and thus no IFP motion was required | The State (Frakes) implicitly relied on the court’s authority to apply IFP screening and deny relief as frivolous | Court held this was error: § 29-2824 permits filing without prepayment or IFP status; the motion should not have been treated as an IFP request |
| Whether the petition could be dismissed as frivolous without first filing and reviewing it under habeas standards | Buggs asserted the court incorrectly labeled the petition frivolous to deny fee relief and prevent filing/review | The district court concluded the petition was frivolous and denied the fee-postponement request on that basis | Court reversed: district court must file the petition (consistent with § 29-2824) and then examine whether it states a cause of action; frivolousness review under § 25-2301.02 is a different inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016) (addressing filing requirements and treatment of habeas fee issues)
- Dixon v. Hann, 160 Neb. 316, 70 N.W.2d 80 (Neb. 1955) (duty of court to examine habeas petition and deny if it fails to state a cause of action)
- O'Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 863 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 2015) (discussing habeas procedures and related judicial responsibilities)