Sivak v. Freedland
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02257
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Freedland, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed seven cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees and denied pending requests to waive appeal fees.
Lacey Sivak's seven cases were dismissed without prejudice, and his pending requests to proceed without paying appeal fees were denied. The order allows him to seek reopening of a case after paying that case's full filing fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Freedland, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed seven actions. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case, but he appealed instead. Because the appeals had not been permitted by the Ninth Circuit, the district court retained jurisdiction. After the payment deadline passed, the court dismissed each action without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee. The court also denied pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal and terminated the other pending motions as moot.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued the order on July 11, 2024, and directed the clerk to close all seven cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Freedland · No. 3:24-cv-02257
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified in the order as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed seven actions while representing himself. In each case, the court denied his 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 after three or more prior actions or appeals were dismissed, unless the prisoner adequately alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific imminent danger when he filed the actions.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the fees. Instead, he filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit.
Jurisdiction and dismissal
The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an interlocutory appeal is not considered filed until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring these interlocutory appeals, the district court retained jurisdiction over the actions.
Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed, the court dismissed each of the seven actions without prejudice. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying that case's full filing fee. A separate full filing fee is required for each case he seeks to reopen and pursue.
Appeal fee requests and final directives
The court denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied Sivak that status in the district court. The order states that the Ninth Circuit will independently review the record if Sivak asks that court to proceed without paying the appeal fee. The Ninth Circuit will decide whether to grant that request. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the seven cases.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on July 11, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.