Tyler v. Natvig

Realty Co., Inc., 160 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Kan. 2001); Bullock
v. Dioguardi, 847 F. Supp. 553 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Lawson v.
Edwardsburg Public School, 751 F. Supp. 1257 (W.D. Mich.
1990); Lowe v. City of Shelton, 83 Conn. App. 750, 851 A.2d
1183 (2004); Shields v. Cape Fox Corp., 42 P.3d 1083 (Alaska
2002); Byers-Watts v. Parker, 199 Ariz. 466, 18 P.3d 1265
(Ariz. App. 2001); Chisholm v. Rueckhaus, 124 N.M. 255, 948
P.2d 707 (N.M. App. 1997); Blue v. People, 223 Ill. App. 3d
594, 585 N.E.2d 625, 165 Ill. Dec. 894 (1992). Cf. Harris v.
Apfel, 209 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that nonattorney
parent could appear pro se on behalf of minor child in Social
Security appeal). The rule “helps to ensure that children right-
fully entitled to legal relief are not deprived of their day in
court by unskilled, if caring, parents.” Devine v. Indian River
County School Bd., 121 F.3d at 582. It is not in a child’s best
interests to be represented by a nonattorney.
[5] Proceedings in a suit by a person not entitled to practice
law are a nullity, and the suit may be dismissed. Anderzhon/
Architects v. 57 Oxbow II Partnership, 250 Neb. 768, 553
N.W.2d 157 (1996). Goodwin’s appellate brief is captioned
“David Goodwin OBO his minor child: Desmond Goodwin vs.
Mathias M. Hobza.” To the extent Goodwin seeks to prosecute
this appeal pro se on Desmond’s behalf, it is a nullity.
CONCLUSION
We 	conclude 	that 	the 	court 	did 	not 	err 	in 	dismissing
Goodwin’s complaint.
A ffirmed.
Billy Tyler , AppellAnT, v.
John nATvig , Appellee .
762 N.W.2d 621
Filed February 10, 2009. 	No. A-08-650.
1. Affidavits: Appeal and Error. An appellate court shall review the decision deny-
ing in forma pauperis eligibility de novo on the record based on the transcript of
the hearing or the written statement of the court.
2. Courts: Affidavits: Statutes. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008)
requires a district court to grant an application to proceed in forma pauperis—
358 	17 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:14 AM CST

barring an objection based upon the grounds enumerated in the statute and the
court’s decision to sustain the objection.
3. Actions: Words and Phrases. A frivolous legal position pursuant to Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is one wholly without merit, that is, without
rational argument based on the law or on the evidence.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: peTer
C. 	BATAillon, 	Judge. 	Reversed 	and 	remanded 	for 	further
proceedings.
Billy Tyler, pro se.
No appearance for appellee.
SieverS, CArlSon, and CASSel, Judges.
CASSel, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Billy Tyler appeals the denial of his application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The district court denied Tyler’s application,
stating that Tyler’s complaint was illegible. We find that the
district court erred in immediately denying Tyler’s application
on this basis.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2008, Tyler filed a complaint with the district
court entitled “Civil Action 4 Defamation/Slander” and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint was
handwritten. On May 27, the court ordered that Tyler’s applica-
tion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the grounds that
the complaint was illegible, which, the court stated, prevented
the court from determining whether the complaint was frivo-
lous or malicious.
Tyler timely appeals.
Pursuant to authority granted to this court under Neb. Ct. R.
App. P. § 2-111(B)(1), this case was ordered submitted without
oral argument.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Tyler assigns that the district court erred in denying his
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
TyLER v. NATvIG 	359
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 358

STANDARD OF REvIEW
[1] An appellate court shall review the decision denying in
forma pauperis eligibility de novo on the record based on the
transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court.
Thompson v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 263 Neb. 463, 640
N.W.2d 671 (2002).
ANALySIS
[2] The district court erred in denying Tyler’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the complaint
was illegible. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008)
requires a district court to grant an application to proceed in
forma pauperis—barring an objection based upon the grounds
enumerated in the statute and the court’s decision to sustain
the objection. The grounds on which a court may deny an
application to proceed in forma pauperis are as follows: “(1)
An application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted
unless there is an objection that the party filing the application
(a) has sufficient funds to pay costs, fees, or security or (b)
is asserting legal positions which are frivolous or malicious.”
§ 25-2301.02.
[3] The district court denied Tyler’s application because the
court believed that the complaint was illegible and thus pre-
vented the court from determining whether the complaint was
frivolous or malicious. This does not fulfill the requirement of
§ 25-2301.02 that the court find that the complaint was actually
frivolous or malicious as a prerequisite to denying the applica-
tion. A frivolous legal position pursuant to § 25-2301.02 is one
wholly without merit, that is, without rational argument based
on the law or on the evidence. Tyler v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr.
Servs., 13 Neb. App. 795, 701 N.W.2d 847 (2005).
We note that a district court is not without a remedy when
a litigant files an application to proceed in forma pauperis in
conjunction with an illegible complaint such that the court
cannot determine whether the complaint is frivolous or mali-
cious. Pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. § 6-1503, all pleadings “shall be
readable” and a “pleading which does not conform . . . will be
subject to a motion to strike from the file or such other action
as the court deems proper.” This rule provides the district court
360 	17 NEBRASKA APPELLATE REPORTS

with the authority to strike the illegible complaint and hold
the application to proceed in forma pauperis in abeyance until
the applicant provides the court with a legible complaint. Of
course, if an applicant refuses or fails to timely comply, the
application would then be subject to dismissal. See Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-601 (Reissue 2008).
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the district court erred in denying Tyler’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis without affording
Tyler an opportunity to file a legible complaint. We therefore
reverse, and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
reverSed And remAnded for
furTher proCeedingS.
TyLER v. NATvIG 	361
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 358