- 131 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF PATTANGALL

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 131

In re Change of Name of Douglas David Pattan

Douglas David Pattangall, appellant, v

State of Nebraska, appelle

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 11, 2015. No. A-14-745.

1. Affidavits: Appeal and Error. A district court’s denial of in forma 

pauperis under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed 

de novo on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the written statement of the court.

2. Constitutional Law: Judgments. 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(1) 

(Reissue 2008) 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.

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.

4. Statutes. Where general and special provisions of statutes are in conflict, the general law yields to the special provision or more specific statute.

5. Judgments: Records: Appeal and Error. Where the record demonstrates that the decision of the trial court is ultimately correct, although 

such correctness is based on a ground or reason different from that 

assigned by the trial court, an appellate court will affirm.

Appeal from the District Court for Johnson County: Daniel

E. Bryan, Jr., Judge. Affirme

Douglas David Pattangall, pro se.
- 132 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF PATTANGALL

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 131

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Blake E. Johnson 

for amicus curiae State of Nebraska.

Moore, Chief Judge, and Pirtle and Bishop, Judg

Moore, Chief Judge

Douglas David Pattangall filed a petition for name change 

in the district court for Johnson County. He moved to proceed 

in forma pauperis, and the district court denied the motion on 

the ground that the petition asserted reasons that were frivolous and meritless. Pattangall appeals, and we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Pattangall is an inmate incarcerated at the Tecumseh 

State Correctional Institution. On August 22, 2014, he filed 

a pro se petition for name change in the district court for 

Johnson County. Pattangall alleged that he sought to change 

his name to Adar ben-David for religious reasons. Pattangall 

moved the district court to proceed with the name change in 

forma pauperis.

The district court denied Pattangall’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis on the same day the motion was filed with the 

court. The court stated that it denied the motion for the reason 

that Pattangall’s petition asserted reasons that were frivolous 

and meritless.

Pattangall has timely appealed.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Pattangall assigns that the district court erred in denying his 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] A district court’s denial of in forma pauperis under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02 (Reissue 2008) is reviewed de novo 

on the record based on the transcript of the hearing or the 

written statement of the court. See Gray v. Kenney, 290 Neb. 

888, 863 N.W.2d 127 (2015).
- 133 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF PATTANGALL

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 131

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which 

an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent 

conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court 

below. Schaffer v. Cass County, 290 Neb. 892, 863 N.W.2d 

143 (2015).

ANALYSIS

[2,3] Applications to proceed in forma pauperis are governed by § 25-2301.02.

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,” § 25-2301.02(1) 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.”

Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 861, 866, 824 N.W.2d 26, 32 

(2012), quoting Cole v. Blum, 262 Neb. 1058, 637 N.W.2d 606 

(2002). 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. Id.

In this case, Pattangall sought to change his name pursuant 

to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,271 (Cum. Supp. 2014). Section 

25-21,271 requires a person who desires a name change to file 

a petition in the district court of the county in which the person is a resident. The petition must set forth

(a) that the petitioner has been a bona fide citizen of 

such county for at least one year prior to the filing of 

the petition, (b) the address of the petitioner, (c) the date 

of birth of the petitioner, (d) the cause for which the 

change of petitioner’s name is sought, and (e) the name 

asked for.

§ 25-21,271(1). Pattangall’s petition for name change alleged 

the following:

1. [Pattangall’s] current address is 2725 No. Hwy 50, 

Tecumseh, Johnson County, Nebraska.
- 134 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF PATTANGALL

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 131

2. [Pattangall] has been a resident of Johnson County, 

Nebraska for more than one year prior to the filing of 

this Petition.

3. [Pattangall’s] current name is Douglas David 

Pattangall.

4. [Pattangall’s date of birth].

5. [Pattangall] seeks to have the name of Adar 

ben-David.

6. [Pattangall] seeks to have his name changed for 

religious reasons. [Pattangall] seeks to cast off the last 

vestiges of Christianity and fully identify with his ethnic 

ancestry, as well as manner of faith.

Comparing Pattangall’s petition to the statutory elements, it is 

clear his petition complies with the statute.

Even though Pattangall’s petition for name change is sufficient in form to comply with the statute, the district court 

denied Pattangall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

because it determined his position to be legally frivolous and 

meritless. The State, appearing in this case as amicus curiae, 

contends the court reached the correct decision even though it 

disagrees with the court’s reasoning. The State contends that 

Nebraska law does not allow a district court to grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis for a name change proceeding. We 

agree with the State’s position.

Two statutory provisions, as applied to a name change 

application, are in conflict. The general in forma pauperis rule, 

found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.01 (Reissue 2008), states:

Any county or state court, except the Nebraska 

Workers’ Compensation Court, may authorize the commencement, prosecution, defense, or appeal therein, of a 

civil or criminal case in forma pauperis. An application to 

proceed in forma pauperis shall include an affidavit stating that the affiant is unable to pay the fees and costs or 

give security required to proceed with the case, the nature 

of the action, defense, or appeal, and the affiant’s belief 

that he or she is entitled to redress.
- 135 -

Decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appe

23 Nebraska Appellate Repo

IN RE CHANGE OF NAME OF PATTANGALL

Cite as 23 Neb. App. 131

But, as the State demonstrates in its brief, Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 25-21,273 (Reissue 2008) is a more specific statute which 

requires a petitioner seeking a name change to satisfy all of 

the costs for the proceedings. The pertinent part of § 25-21,273 

reads, “All proceedings under sections 25-21,270 to 25-21,272 

shall be at the cost of the petitioner or petitioners, for which 

fee-bill or execution may issue as in civil cases.”

[4] Where general and special provisions of statutes are 

in conflict, the general law yields to the special provision or 

more specific statute. Schaffer v. Cass County, 290 Neb. 892, 

863 N.W.2d 143 (2015). In this circumstance, the Legislature 

has made a specific provision that the cost of name change 

proceedings is to be borne by the petitioner. The general rule 

regarding in forma pauperis status yields to this more specific provision.

[5] We conclude that because a petitioner for a name 

change is statutorily required to pay for the cost of all proceedings, the district court properly denied Pattangall’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Where the record demonstrates that the decision of the trial court is ultimately correct, 

although such correctness is based on a ground or reason different from that assigned by the trial court, an appellate court 

will affirm. See Tyson Fresh Meats v. State, 270 Neb. 535, 704 

N.W.2d 788 (2005).

CONCLUSION

The district court did not err when it denied Pattangall’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Affirme