Sivak v. Thompson
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01208
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Thompson, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed twelve actions without prejudice and denied pending appeal fee-waiver motions under the three-strikes rule.
Lacey Sivak’s twelve actions were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees after being denied permission to proceed without paying them. Pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal were also denied, while the Ninth Circuit retained authority to decide any such requests filed there.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed twelve actions. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior dismissals and had not shown a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action.
The court gave Sivak fourteen days to pay the full filing fee in each case. Instead of paying, he appealed some of the rulings. The court concluded that it still had authority to act because the appeals had not been authorized by the Ninth Circuit, and the deadlines for paying the fees had passed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee. She also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal and ordered the other pending motions terminated as moot and the cases closed.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Thompson · No. 3:24-cv-01208
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the twelve listed actions without a lawyer. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees, known as in forma pauperis or IFP requests, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court stated that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger when he filed these actions, and did not qualify to proceed without paying fees as a prisoner with multiple prior dismissals. The court had directed him to pay the full filing fee in each case within fourteen days, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the rulings instead of paying the filing fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finished—does not become effective until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these interlocutory appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over the actions. The court also noted that the deadlines for paying the filing fees had passed.
Rulings
The court dismissed each of the twelve actions without prejudice. It stated that Sivak could move to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee would be required for each case he sought to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons it had denied that status in the district court. The court explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying fees in that court. Finally, the Clerk was ordered to terminate all other pending motions in each case as moot and close all of the cases. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.