Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Scott William Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that a party must comply with Nebraska appellate rule 2-109(E) when implicitly challenging the constitutionality of a statute that authorizes the challenged act, even if the party does not identify the statute in the appellate brief. Because Smith failed to provide the required notice and service, the court declined to consider his constitutional arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Smith's constitutional challenge to denial of in forma pauperis status without a hearing was subject to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E)'s notice and service requirements even though Smith did not expressly challenge the statute authorizing the denial.
- Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court could reach the constitutional challenge when Smith failed to file the required notice with the Supreme Court Clerk and serve the Attorney General.
- Whether the district court's order denying in forma pauperis status should be affirmed.
Holdings
- Notice under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E) is required when an appeal challenges the constitutionality of an act explicitly authorized by a statute, even if the appellant does not characterize the challenge as one against the statute or cite the statute in the appellate brief.
- When a party fails to comply strictly with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E), the Nebraska Supreme Court will not consider the constitutional challenge to the statute or statutory authority under attack.
- The district court's order denying Smith's application to proceed in forma pauperis was affirmed.
Key quotations
“We hold that notice under § 2-109(E) is required under such circumstances.” (393)
“A litigant cannot avoid the requirements of § 2-109(E) and the concurrent requisite scrutiny for invalidating statutory provisions merely by failing to cite to the statute that authorizes the constitutionally challenged act.” (394)
Factual background
Smith filed a pro se declaratory judgment action seeking relief from a name-change order, a protection order, and a divorce decree. He also sought an injunction, court-appointed counsel, and a declaration concerning alleged constitutional violations. After Smith applied to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court denied the application sua sponte and without a hearing, determining that the complaint asserted legally frivolous positions and providing written reasons for the denial.
Procedural history
Smith filed a declaratory judgment action challenging several prior orders and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. The Cass County District Court denied the application sua sponte and without a hearing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02, finding that Smith's complaint asserted legally frivolous positions. Smith appealed, arguing that denial without a hearing violated constitutional guarantees of access to the courts and due process. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the constitutional issue because Smith failed to comply with the required notice procedure for constitutional challenges to statutes.