Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01479
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees and denied pending appellate fee requests.
Lacey Sivak's 33 listed actions were dismissed without prejudice and closed after he did not pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen an action by paying that action's full filing fee. Any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal was denied, while the Ninth Circuit retained authority to decide such an appellate request.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the actions against Zahida Perea. The court denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior dismissals and had not alleged 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; instead, he appealed some of the orders. The court concluded that it still had authority to act because the appeals had not been authorized by the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, meaning Sivak may seek to reopen a case by paying its full filing fee. The judge also denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal and directed the clerk to terminate other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01479
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the above-captioned actions against Zahida Perea. The order applies to the following case numbers: 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), 24-cv-01475-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01476-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01477-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01478-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01479-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01480-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01481-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01482-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01483-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01484-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01487-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01499-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01500-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01501-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01502-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01503-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01504-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01505-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01506-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01507-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01508-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01509-AMO (PR), and 24-cv-01511-AMO (PR).
Filing-fee status
Sivak asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fees. The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision that generally bars a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the prisoner alleges specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals, had not alleged specific imminent danger at the time he filed, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying as a prisoner with many prior lawsuits dismissed as frivolous.
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 orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally shifts authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but an 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 permission, the district court concluded that it retained authority over these actions.
Rulings
The payment deadlines had passed. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each above-captioned action. The order states that, after paying the full filing fee, Sivak may file a motion to reopen any case, and that a separate full filing fee will be required for each case he seeks to reopen.
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 Sivak that status in the district court. The order states that the Ninth Circuit will independently review any request to proceed without paying fees on appeal and will decide whether to grant that status. The clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close the cases.
The order does not decide the underlying claims described in the actions; it disposes of them based on the filing-fee requirement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.