Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2024

Sivak v. Perea

Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Docket
3:24-cv-01505
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed 24-cv-00764-AMO (PR) and related actions without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees.

Who this affects

Lacey Sivak’s multiple actions against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice after Sivak did not pay the required filing fees; pending appellate fee requests 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 qualifying prior dismissals and had not alleged an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court gave him 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action.

Sivak did not pay the fees and instead appealed some of the orders. The court explained that it still had authority to act because the appeals were not yet authorized by the Ninth Circuit. The filing-fee deadlines had passed.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee. The judge also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal and ordered other pending motions terminated as moot and the cases closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01505
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
July 11, 2024

Background

Lacey Sivak filed the above-captioned actions and represented himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more qualifying prior cases or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals, had not alleged the required immediate danger when he filed these actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying fees as a prisoner with three or more qualifying dismissals.

The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the filing fees. He appealed some of the orders instead. The court explained that an appeal of an interim order does not transfer the district court’s authority over the case until the court of appeals authorizes the appeal. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained authority over the actions.

Rulings

The court dismissed without prejudice each of the above-captioned actions because Sivak’s deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed. The court stated that Sivak could pay the full filing fee and file a motion to reopen any action, but a separate full filing fee would be required for each case he wished to reopen and pursue.

The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons it had denied that status in the district court. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak asked that court to allow an appeal without paying fees and would decide whether to grant that request. Finally, the Clerk was ordered to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close all of the actions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.