Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-00788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice for unpaid filing fees and denied related requests to proceed without paying appeal fees.
Lacey Sivak's listed actions were dismissed without prejudice. Reopening an action requires payment of its full filing fee, and any pending requests to proceed without paying appeal fees were denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, a prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court denied those requests because Sivak had at least three prior qualifying dismissals and had not shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. He did not pay, and the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for the interlocutory appeals he filed in some cases, so the district court retained authority to act.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to seek reopening after paying the full fee for each case. The judge also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying appeal fees and directed the clerk to terminate the other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-00788
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. In each case, he asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP.
The court denied Sivak's IFP requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That law generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more prior qualifying dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals and had not alleged that kind of danger. The court also found that he did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with many prior dismissed lawsuits.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the IFP orders to the Ninth Circuit.
Appeal-related jurisdiction
The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority 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 Sivak permission to bring those appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over the actions.
Ruling
The deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each listed action. Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wants 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 denied IFP status in the district court. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any appeal-related IFP request and decide whether to grant that status.
Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close all of the listed cases. The order addressed filing-fee status and case closure rather than the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.