1. General
2. Appeals
3. Frivolous or malicious complaints
1. General
Under subsection (1) of this section, a trial court cannot deny in forma pauperis status based on the frivolous or malicious nature of the appeal where a defendant has a constitutional right to appeal in a felony case, and a hearing is required on an objection to a party's application for in forma pauperis status, whether the objection is based on the applicant's ability to pay or the applicant is asserting a frivolous position, except where the objection is made on the court's own motion on the grounds that the legal positions asserted by the applicant are frivolous or malicious. State on behalf of Jakai C. v. Tiffany M., 292 Neb. 68, 871 N.W.2d 230 (2015).
Following a denial of an application to proceed in forma pauperis, under subsection (1) of this section, a party may either proceed with the trial action or appeal the ruling denying in forma pauperis status. Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704, 687 N.W.2d 907 (2004).
Except in those cases where the denial of in forma pauperis status would deny a defendant his or her constitutional right to appeal in a felony case, this section allows the court on its own motion to deny in forma pauperis status on the basis that the legal positions asserted by the applicant are frivolous or malicious, provided that the court issue a written statement of its reasons, findings, and conclusions for denial. In re Change of Name of Pattangall, 23 Neb. App. 131, 868 N.W.2d 816 (2015).
Except in those cases where the denial of in forma pauperis status would deny a defendant his or her constitutional right to appeal in a felony case, this section allows the court on its own motion, or upon objection by an interested party, to deny in forma pauperis status on the basis that the legal positions asserted by the applicant are frivolous or malicious. Gray v. Kenney, 22 Neb. App. 739, 860 N.W.2d 214 (2015).
This section supersedes the requirement set forth in Flora v. Escudero, 247 Neb. 260, 526 N.W.2d 643 (1995), that a court provide a hearing before denying any application to proceed in forma pauperis. Moore v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 12 Neb. App. 525, 679 N.W.2d 427 (2004).
2. Appeals
The right to interlocutory appeal of the denial of in forma pauperis status in subsection (1) of this section applies only to denials made pursuant to the two bases for denial set forth in that subsection. Robinson v. Houston, 298 Neb. 746, 905 N.W.2d 636 (2018).
A petitioner for habeas corpus relief whose initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and who takes a timely interlocutory appeal from that denial, accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, is not required to file a second appeal where the district court erroneously denies the second in forma pauperis motion in order to obtain appellate review of the initial denial. Campbell v. Hansen, 298 Neb. 669, 905 N.W.2d 519 (2018).
When an in forma pauperis application is denied and the applicant seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in order to obtain appellate review of that denial, the trial court does not have authority to issue an order that would interfere with such appellate review. Campbell v. Hansen, 298 Neb. 669, 905 N.W.2d 519 (2018).
A trial court does not have authority to deny an in forma pauperis application once an in forma pauperis application is denied and the applicant wishes to seek interlocutory appellate review of the denial. Mumin v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 381, 904 N.W.2d 667 (2017).
A trial court has the authority to deny an in forma pauperis application requested to commence, prosecute, defend, or appeal a case if the court finds the applicant has sufficient funds or the legal positions being asserted therein are frivolous or malicious. Mumin v. Frakes, 298 Neb. 381, 904 N.W.2d 667 (2017).
An appellate court obtains jurisdiction over an appeal challenging the denial of an application to proceed in forma pauperis upon the filing of a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis and a poverty affidavit with the party's timely notice of appeal. State v. Carter, 292 Neb. 16, 870 N.W.2d 641 (2015).
A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis status is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court. Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 861, 824 N.W.2d 26 (2012); In re Change of Name of Pattangall, 23 Neb. App. 131, 868 N.W.2d 816 (2015); Gray v. Kenney, 22 Neb. App. 739, 860 N.W.2d 214 (2015).
An appellate court obtains jurisdiction over an appeal upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal and a proper in forma pauperis application and affidavit, without literal payment of the fees, costs, or security mentioned in subsection (1) of this section. Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704, 687 N.W.2d 907 (2004).
Under this section, there is a statutory right of interlocutory appellate review of a decision denying in forma pauperis eligibility. Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704, 687 N.W.2d 907 (2004).
Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, in order to perfect his appeal, the appellant had 30 days from the district court's denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis in which to file a docket fee with the clerk of the district court. Martin v. McGinn, 267 Neb. 931, 678 N.W.2d 737 (2004).
3. Frivolous or malicious complaints
The trial court properly denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the basis that the party asserted only frivolous legal positions in the party's underlying motion for postconviction relief. State v. Carter, 292 Neb. 16, 870 N.W.2d 641 (2015).
The filing of an action in an improper venue does not make the legal position asserted by a plaintiff "frivolous or malicious" for purposes of in forma pauperis status. Castonguay v. Retelsdorf, 291 Neb. 220, 865 N.W.2d 91 (2015).
When, pursuant to this section, a trial court denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on its own motion on the ground that the party seeking leave is asserting legal positions which are frivolous or malicious, its order shall include the court’s reasons for such conclusion. Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 861, 824 N.W.2d 26 (2012).
A frivolous legal position pursuant to this section is one wholly without merit, that is, without rational argument based on the law or on the evidence. Except in those cases where the denial of in forma pauperis status would deny a defendant his or her constitutional right to appeal in a felony case, this section allows the court on its own motion to deny in forma pauperis status on the basis that the legal positions asserted by the applicant are frivolous or malicious, provided that the court issue a written statement of its reasons, findings, and conclusions for denial. This section contains no requirement that the court grant leave to amend the underlying petition before denying a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Cole v. Blum, 262 Neb. 1058, 637 N.W.2d 606 (2002).
A frivolous legal position is one wholly without merit, that is, without rational argument based on the law or on the evidence. In re Change of Name of Pattangall, 23 Neb. App. 131, 868 N.W.2d 816 (2015); Gray v. Kenney, 22 Neb. App. 739, 860 N.W.2d 214 (2015); Tyler v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 13 Neb. App. 795, 701 N.W.2d 847 (2005).
For the purposes of the statute governing applications to proceed in forma pauperis, a "frivolous legal position" is one wholly without merit, that is, without rational argument based on the law or on the evidence. Lenz v. Hicks, 20 Neb. App. 431, 824 N.W.2d 769 (2012).
The former clients' action against the attorney was not frivolous, and thus, the denial of their petition to proceed in forma pauperis for the failure to plead a cause of action was not warranted; liberally construed, the former clients' action alleged that the attorney committed legal malpractice in his representation of them in a bankruptcy case. Lenz v. Hicks, 20 Neb. App. 431, 824 N.W.2d 769 (2012).
A court may not immediately deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground the proposed complaint is illegible, as such does not fulfill the requirement of this section that the court find that the complaint was actually frivolous or malicious as a prerequisite to denying the application. Tyler v. Natvig, 17 Neb. App. 358, 762 N.W.2d 621 (2009).
Principles of liberal construction apply to the review of a denial of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis upon the ground that the complaint was frivolous. Tyler v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 13 Neb. App. 795, 701 N.W.2d 847 (2005).
A court is not required to conduct a hearing before denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis if the court has objected to the application on its own motion on the ground that the legal positions asserted therein are frivolous or malicious, and if the court provides a written statement of its reasons, findings, and conclusions for denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis. Moore v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 12 Neb. App. 525, 679 N.W.2d 427 (2004).