Buggs v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 432

Marvin E. Buggs, convicted in 2001 of second degree forgery with a habitual criminal enhancement and manslaughter, serving consecutive sentences; mandatory release and parole eligibility dates are June 2021.
On August 31, 2016, Buggs submitted a motion seeking postponement of 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 construed Buggs’ motion as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and denied it, finding the underlying 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 fees for habeas filings and whether the district court erred by applying IFP standards and deeming the petition frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 29-2824 requires prepayment or IFP status to file a habeas petition	Buggs: § 29-2824 forbids prepayment; no IFP required	Frakes: district court treated the motion as IFP and required IFP review	Held: § 29-2824 bars prepayment; IFP status not required and the court erred in treating the motion as an IFP request
Whether the district court could deny filing based on frivolousness without first filing/examining the petition	Buggs: petition should be filed and examined on merits under habeas standards	Frakes: district court declined filing, finding petition frivolous	Held: Court must file the petition (if not filed) 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 (2016) (IFP and fee rules in habeas context discussed)
Dixon v. Hann, 160 Neb. 316, 70 N.W.2d 80 (1955) (duty of court to examine habeas petition and deny if no cause of action)
O’Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 863 N.W.2d 162 (2015) (procedural considerations in habeas review)