Sivak v. Perea

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the above-captioned actions against Zahida Perea. The opinion addresses multiple cases, including Case Nos. 24-cv-00764-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00765-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00783-AMO (PR) through 24-cv-00788-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01067-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01069-AMO (PR), and numerous cases numbered 24-cv-01475-AMO (PR) through 24-cv-01511-AMO (PR), with gaps in the listed sequence.

In each case, the court denied Sivak’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals, had not alleged specific imminent danger when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with many prior cases dismissed as frivolous.

The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within fourteen days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but such an appeal is not considered filed until the court of appeals authorizes it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission to appeal, the district court retained authority over these actions.

Ruling

The deadline to pay the filing fees had passed. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each above-captioned action. Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying the full filing fee, but a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.

The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied Sivak’s requests in the district court. The opinion states that the Ninth Circuit will independently review the record if Sivak asks that court to proceed without paying fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.

Effect of the Order

This order did not decide the underlying claims in the actions. It ended the cases because Sivak did not pay the required filing fees after being denied permission to proceed without paying them. The dismissals were without prejudice, and the order expressly permits a motion to reopen after payment of the applicable fee.