Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01478
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak did not pay filing fees and denied pending appeal fee-waiver motions.
Lacey Sivak's multiple actions against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice after Sivak did not pay the required filing fees. Any pending requests to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee were also denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak represented himself in multiple actions. The court had denied his requests to avoid paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and did not show an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
Sivak appealed some of those fee-related orders, but the appeals court had not authorized the interlocutory appeals. The district court therefore retained authority over the actions, and the deadline to pay the filing fees passed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court also denied any pending request to avoid the filing fee for an appeal, made all other pending motions moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01478
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the above-captioned actions. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as in forma pauperis or IFP status, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Sivak did not pay the filing fees. He appealed some of the orders denying IFP status. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal does not transfer authority over the disputed issues until the appeals court permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission to appeal, the district court retained authority over these actions. The deadline for paying the filing fees had passed.
Disposition
The court dismissed each above-captioned action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak could pay the full filing fee and move to reopen any action, but a separate full filing fee would be required for each case he wanted to reopen and pursue. The court also denied any pending motion for IFP status on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), while noting that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether to grant IFP status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered the order on July 11, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.