Sivak v. Thompson
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01039
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Thompson, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice and denied requests to proceed without paying appeal fees.
Lacey Sivak and the twelve actions listed in the order. Each action was dismissed without prejudice, and any pending request to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee was denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Thompson, Lacey Sivak filed the listed actions while representing himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The deadlines to pay the full filing fees passed while Sivak appealed some of the fee rulings. The court concluded that it still had authority over the actions because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for the interlocutory appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice and closed the cases. Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee, and the court denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Thompson · No. 3:24-cv-01039
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the actions listed in the caption. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees when the prisoner has had three or more prior cases or appeals dismissed in the circumstances covered by the statute, unless the prisoner alleges specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged the required imminent danger when he filed, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the filing fee.
Appeals and Filing-Fee Deadlines
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each case within fourteen days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the fees. The court explained that a notice of an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the issues on appeal to the appeals court, but an interlocutory appeal is not treated as filed until the appeals court permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring the interlocutory appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over these actions. The deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed.
Rulings
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that each listed action be dismissed without prejudice. After paying the full filing fee, Sivak may file a motion to reopen any case, but a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wishes to reopen and pursue. The court also denied any pending motion to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it had denied that status in the district court. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether to grant fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was ordered to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close the cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.