Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01476
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice and denied pending requests to proceed without fees on appeal.
Lacey Sivak’s related district-court actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees. Any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal were also denied.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the related actions. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and did not allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court had ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days. He did not pay, and the deadline passed. Although he appealed some orders, the appeals did not transfer jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit had not permitted those interlocutory appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to seek reopening by paying the full fee for each case. The judge also denied any pending requests to proceed without fees on appeal and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01476
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the related actions while representing himself. The caption lists multiple case numbers, including 24-cv-00764-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00765-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00783-AMO (PR), and numerous others.
In each action, the court denied Sivak’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals qualifying as “strikes,” had not alleged specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, and did not meet the requirements for proceeding without paying the fees. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the filing fees. 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. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, so the district court retained jurisdiction over the actions.
Ruling
The deadline for paying the filing fees had passed. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each of the related actions. Sivak may file a motion to reopen an action after paying its full filing fee, and a separate full filing fee is required for each action he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied that status in the district court. The Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying the appellate fee and whether an appeal was frivolous. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
Effect of the order
The order ended the listed district-court actions, but the dismissals were without prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.