Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01480
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees and denied pending requests to appeal without paying fees.
Lacey Sivak and all of the above-captioned actions; any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal were also denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak represented himself in multiple actions. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior qualifying dismissals and had not alleged an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
Sivak did not pay the required filing fees by the deadline. He appealed some of the orders, but the appeals court had not granted permission for those interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained jurisdiction over the cases.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court said Sivak could ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01480
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, who the opinion identifies as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions while representing himself. The cases have multiple docket numbers, including 24-cv-00764-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00765-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00783-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00784-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00785-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00786-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00787-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00788-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01067-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01069-AMO (PR), and the listed 24-cv-01475-AMO (PR) through 24-cv-01511-AMO (PR) cases.
In each case, the court denied Sivak's request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision, part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior qualifying dismissals, had not alleged the required immediate danger when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying fees as a prisoner with three or more such dismissals. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Jurisdiction and Filing-Fee Deadline
Sivak did not pay the filing fees by the deadline. Instead, he appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers jurisdiction over the appealed issues to the appeals court, but a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the appeals court permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court concluded that it retained jurisdiction over these actions.
Ruling
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that each above-captioned action be dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that, after paying the full filing fee, Sivak may file a motion to reopen any case, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied that status in the district court. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying fees on appeal and decide whether to grant that status. Finally, the Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order. The court resolved filing-fee and prisoner-screening issues without deciding the underlying claims in the actions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.