Buggs v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 432

Marvin E. Buggs is serving sentences imposed in 2001 (forgery with habitual enhancement and manslaughter); his 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 (the record is unclear whether the petition was formally filed).
The district court treated the fee-postponement motion as an in forma pauperis (IFP) request, denied it, and held Buggs’ underlying habeas petition was frivolous.
Buggs appealed the denial and the district court’s characterization of his motion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether § 29-2824 precludes prepayment of fees for habeas petitions and whether IFP procedures applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 29-2824 requires prepayment or IFP status to file a habeas petition	Buggs: § 29-2824 prohibits prepayment of fees; no IFP status needed	Frakes: Court treated the motion as IFP and applied frivolousness review	Court: § 29-2824 bars prepayment; IFP not required and motion to postpone fees was unnecessary
Whether the district court properly denied relief as frivolous under IFP standards	Buggs: district court erroneously applied IFP/frivolous review when statute governs filing	Frakes: underlying petition was frivolous, justifying denial	Court: District court erred to apply frivolous/IFP standards; must file and then examine petition on habeas merits/cause-of-action basis

Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016) (recognizing that habeas filing fees need not be prepaid and addressing related filing procedures)
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 corpus procedural principles)