Npimnee v. Young

── Npimnee v. Young ── Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) NPIMNEE V. YOUNG NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). HOPE NPIMNEE, APPELLANT, V. KEVIN YOUNG, APPELLEE. Filed May 12, 2026. No. A-25-712. Appeal from the District Court for Lincoln County: PATRICK M. HENG, Judge. Affirmed. Hope Npimnee, pro se. No appearance by appellee. MOORE, PIRTLE, and WELCH, Judges. MOORE, Judge. INTRODUCTION Hope Npimnee appeals the order of the district court for Lincoln County denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on his complaint filed against Kevin Young. Following our de novo review, we affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS On August 5, 2025, Npimnee filed a complaint against Young for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that in December 2024, Young offered to pay Npimnee $5,000 to “call Jaide Young telephonically.” Npimnee alleged that he accepted the offer and called Jaide, after which Young allegedly declined to pay Npimnee. The complaint requested the $5,000 allegedly owed by Young and $30,000 in damages. Npimnee also filed an affidavit and application to proceed IFP, which is not included in our record on appeal. -1-  On August 25, 2025, the district court, on its own motion, entered an order denying Npimnee’s affidavit and application to proceed IFP on the basis that Npimnee’s complaint was frivolous. The court found that because the complaint provided only unsupported conclusions, it did not articulate a legitimate cause of action. The court noted that the complaint provided no indication of who Young was in relationship to Jaide, a minor child. Nor was there any indication regarding the custodial parent’s position on the matter and compliance with the parenting plan, if any. The court also noted that the alleged contract was apparently oral, as it was not alleged to be in writing and was not attached to the complaint. Npimnee’s other filings on the date of the complaint indicated that Npimnee was presently serving a term of 35 to 40 years’ imprisonment. As such, any alleged oral agreement would be in excess of 1 year and void pursuant to the statute of frauds. The court concluded that the action was “clearly frivolous and malicious.” Npimnee appeals. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Npimnee assigns that the district court erred in denying his application to proceed IFP as frivolous. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court’s denial of IFP status is reviewed de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or written statement of the court. See Jackson v. Rodriguez, 318 Neb. 657, 18 N.W.3d 408 (2025). ANALYSIS Npimnee sought to recover damages from Young’s alleged breach of a contract. The district court denied his request to proceed IFP because the claim was frivolous. 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, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2016) 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. Jackson v. Rodriguez, supra. A frivolous legal position is one wholly without merit, that is, without ratio