Buggs v. Frakes
298 Neb. 432
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Marvin E. Buggs was convicted in 2001 of second-degree forgery (with habitual enhancement) and manslaughter; he received consecutive long prison terms with the same projected mandatory release/parole date in June 2021.
- On August 31, 2016, Buggs filed 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 request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), denied the request, and characterized the underlying habeas petition as frivolous.
- Buggs appealed the denial and the court’s characterization of his petition as frivolous.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court found that § 29-2824 prohibits prepayment of fees for habeas corpus filings challenging custody in criminal cases, so a separate IFP application is unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly treated a motion to postpone fees under § 29-2824 as an IFP request | Buggs: § 29-2824 bars prepayment of fees for habeas petitions, so no IFP status or fee-postponement motion was required | State: (implicit) district court applied IFP standards and deemed the petition frivolous, supporting denial of the fee request | Court: Error — § 29-2824 allows filing without prepayment or IFP; the court should not have required IFP status |
| Whether the petition should have been dismissed as frivolous at the fee stage | Buggs: petition should be filed and then examined on its merits for stating a cause of action | State: district court found petition frivolous and used that to deny fee relief | Court: Distinct analyses — frivolousness under § 25-2301.02 is different from initial habeas sufficiency; court must file and then examine the petition to determine if it states a cause of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514 (2016) (discussing fee and filing rules for habeas corpus proceedings)
- O'Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 863 N.W.2d 162 (2015) (discussing habeas corpus procedures and review)
- Dixon v. Hann, 160 Neb. 316, 70 N.W.2d 80 (1955) (duty of court to examine habeas petition and deny if it fails to state a cause of action)