Buggs v. Frakes
298 Neb. 432
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Marvin E. Buggs, convicted in 2001 of second-degree forgery (with habitual offender enhancement) and manslaughter, serving consecutive sentences with mandatory release and parole eligibility in June 2021.
- On Aug. 31, 2016, Buggs submitted a motion for postponement of fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2824 and presented a habeas corpus petition to the district court clerk.
- The district court treated the motion as a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and denied it, finding Buggs’ habeas petition frivolous.
- Buggs appealed the denial and the district court’s characterization of his motion.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether § 29-2824 precludes prepayment of filing fees for habeas petitions in criminal custody cases and whether the court erred by applying IFP standards and a frivolousness determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29-2824 requires prepayment or IFP status to file a habeas petition in a criminal custody case | Buggs: § 29-2824 bars any demand for prepayment of fees, so no IFP filing or fee postponement motion was necessary | Frakes: District court implicitly treated motion as IFP and found petition frivolous, justifying denial of fee relief | Court: § 29-2824 bars prepayment; Buggs did not need to obtain IFP status and his postponement motion was unnecessary — district court erred |
| Whether the district court properly denied the motion based on frivolousness | Buggs: Use of frivolousness standard was inappropriate because fee prepayment is prohibited by statute | Frakes: Denial justified because petition was frivolous | Court: Frivolousness review under § 25-2301.02 is distinct; district court should have filed and examined the petition under habeas standards rather than deny on IFP/frivolous grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2016) (holding habeas filing fee rules and IFP treatment are distinct where statute bars prepayment)
- Dixon v. Hann, 160 Neb. 316 (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 (Neb. 2015) (discussing habeas corpus procedural considerations)