Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01483
- 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 appeal fee requests.
Lacey Sivak's listed actions were dismissed without prejudice. Sivak may seek to reopen an action by paying that case's full filing fee, while any pending requests to proceed without paying the appeal fee were denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak filed the listed actions while representing himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior qualifying 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 decisions, the appeals court had not granted permission for those interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained authority to act.
The court dismissed every listed action without prejudice, meaning Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee. Judge Martinez-Olguin also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01483
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and a frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions without a lawyer. The cases are listed under multiple case numbers, including 24-cv-00764-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00765-AMO (PR), and others.
In each action, the court denied Sivak's request to proceed in forma pauperis, which means proceeding without paying the filing fee. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision that generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying after three or more prior qualifying dismissals unless the prisoner alleges specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged specific imminent danger at the time he filed, and did not meet the applicable standard.
The court ordered 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 does not become effective for jurisdictional purposes until the court of appeals permits the appeal. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, so the district court retained jurisdiction over these actions.
Rulings
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each above-captioned action without prejudice because Sivak's deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The order states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying the full filing fee for that case; a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wishes to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court denied that status in the cases. The order explains that the Ninth Circuit will independently review the record if Sivak asks that court to proceed without paying the appeal fee. The clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions and close all of the listed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.