Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-00765
- 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 appellate fee requests.
Lacey Sivak's related actions were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen an action by paying that action's full fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, who represented himself, filed the related actions while incarcerated. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He did not pay, and the deadline passed. Although he appealed some of the fee-related orders, the appeals court had not granted permission for those interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained authority over the cases.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal for the same reasons, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases. Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-00765
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the related actions listed in the order. 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 generally bars a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the fee unless the prisoner alleges specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged imminent danger at the time he filed the actions, and did not meet the requirements for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with three or more prior dismissals.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face 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 appeals court, but a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the appeals court grants permission to bring the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court retained authority over these actions. The payment deadlines passed without payment.
Rulings
The court dismissed each above-captioned action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying that case's full filing fee, 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 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 order noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak asks that court to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.