Campbell v. Hansen
905 N.W.2d 519
Neb.2018Background
- Herbert Lee Campbell filed a habeas corpus petition with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a poverty affidavit; the Johnson County District Court denied the IFP motion as frivolous and gave 30 days to pay fees.
- Campbell timely filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals accompanied by a second IFP motion and poverty affidavit seeking IFP on appeal.
- The district court entered a second order (May 5, 2017) denying IFP on appeal, again characterizing the positions as frivolous and ordering payment within 30 days.
- The Court of Appeals summarily dismissed Campbell’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he had not paid the docket fee or separately appealed the May 5 denial.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review, held that Campbell’s timely notice of appeal plus his IFP application and affidavit vested jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals, reversed the dismissal, and remanded for merits consideration of the first IFP denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petitioner who timely appeals a district court's initial denial of an IFP motion and files an IFP application with the notice of appeal must file a second appeal when the trial court then denies IFP on the appeal | Campbell: his timely notice of appeal plus IFP application and poverty affidavit vested appellate jurisdiction; he should not be required to file another appeal or pay fees to obtain review | Hansen (and Court of Appeals): dismissal proper because Campbell did not pay docket fee or separately appeal the district court’s May 5 denial of IFP on appeal | Held for Campbell: appellate jurisdiction attached upon timely notice plus IFP application and affidavit; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction reversed and remanded |
| Whether the district court had authority to deny an IFP application made to obtain appellate review of an earlier IFP denial | Campbell: the district court lacked authority to issue an order that would interfere with his interlocutory appeal rights | Hansen: district court’s order was valid and required compliance (payment) | Held: trial court may not deny a second IFP application in a way that interferes with appellate review of an initial IFP denial; such denial cannot defeat interlocutory appeal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704 (2004) (trial court cannot bar appellate review by denying a second IFP application when applicant seeks IFP to appeal an initial IFP denial)
- Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 861 (2012) (discusses limits on collateral attack via writ of habeas corpus)
- State v. Carter, 292 Neb. 16 (2015) (procedural rules on appeals and interlocutory rights)