Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01511
- 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 his requests to appeal without paying.
Lacey Sivak's listed actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees. The order also denied pending requests to appeal without paying fees and directed the clerk to close the cases.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court denied those requests because it found that he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not alleged an 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 given permission for those interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained authority to act. The court also denied any pending requests to appeal without paying the fee.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, meaning Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee. The clerk was directed to terminate the other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01511
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the above-captioned actions. In each case, he sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that generally prevents a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying fees unless the prisoner alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions. The court therefore directed him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders denying his requests to proceed without paying fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finally resolved—does not transfer authority to the appeals court until the appeals court permits the appeal. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, so the district court retained authority over these actions.
Rulings
The deadline for Sivak to pay the filing fee in each action had passed. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each above-captioned action. The order states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying that action'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 appeal without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied that status in the district court. The order explains that the Ninth Circuit will independently review the record if Sivak seeks that status there. Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close all of the listed cases.
What the order did not decide
The opinion concerns filing-fee status and case administration. It does not decide the underlying claims in the actions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.