Sivak v. Bennett
- Trina Thompson
- 3:24-cv-02944
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Judge Trina L. Thompson, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees.
Lacey Sivak and the listed cases; the order dismissed each case without prejudice, denied pending requests to proceed without paying appellate fees, terminated other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed cases. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak fourteen days to pay the full filing fee in each case, but he did not pay. Although he appealed some orders, the court said it kept jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit had not permitted those interlocutory appeals. The court dismissed each case without prejudice, allowing Sivak to seek reopening after paying the full fee for that case.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and ordered the cases closed.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Bennett · No. 3:24-cv-02944
- Trina L. Thompson
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. In each action, the court denied Sivak’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee when the prisoner has had three or more qualifying prior cases or appeals dismissed, unless the prisoner alleges a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had multiple prior dismissals, had not alleged the required imminent danger when filing, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within fourteen days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the fees and instead appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers jurisdiction over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court concluded that it retained jurisdiction.
Rulings
The court held that the deadline to pay the filing fee had passed and dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The opinion states that Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying that case’s full filing fee; a separate full fee is required for each case Sivak wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons it had denied Sivak’s requests in the district court. It explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. The clerk was ordered to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
Effect of the Order
The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the cases. The dismissals were without prejudice, and the order states that reopening may be requested after payment of the applicable full filing fee. 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.