Sivak v. Forrest
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-06251
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Thompson, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Lacey Sivak did not pay filing fees required under the three-strikes rule.
Lacey Sivak's 12 actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees; pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal were also denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Judge Trina L. Thompson, et al., Lacey Sivak filed multiple actions while representing himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. He did not pay, and the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for the interlocutory appeals he filed to divest the district court of jurisdiction.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Forrest · No. 3:23-cv-06251
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, filed the above-captioned actions without a lawyer. The cases included docket numbers 24-cv-00631-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00932-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01039-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01056-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01207-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01208-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01209-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01210-AMO (PR), 24-cv-02059-AMO (PR), 24-cv-02944-AMO (PR), 24-cv-02945-AMO (PR), and 23-cv-06251-AMO (PR).
In each case, the court denied Sivak's request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee when the prisoner has had three or more qualifying prior cases dismissed, unless the prisoner alleges a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had many prior dismissals and had not alleged the required imminent danger.
Jurisdiction and Filing Fees
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finally resolved—does not transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals until that court grants permission to bring the appeal. The Ninth Circuit had not granted that permission, so the district court retained jurisdiction. The deadline for paying the filing fees had passed.
Rulings
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that each of the above-captioned actions be dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that Sivak could pay the full filing fee and move to reopen any case, but a separate full fee would be required for each case he wished to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons it had denied that status in the district court. It explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether to grant that status for any appeal. The Clerk was ordered to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.