Sivak v. Perea

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified by the court as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act commonly called the “three-strikes” rule. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fees.

The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, he appealed some of the orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Appeal-related jurisdiction

The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the district court case is finished—generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But under the cited appellate rule, an interlocutory appeal is not considered filed until the court of appeals permits it. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to appeal, so the district court retained authority over these actions. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had issued identical orders dismissing many of Sivak’s interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.

Ruling

Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed, the court dismissed each listed action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak could move to reopen any case after paying the full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee would be required for each case he wanted to reopen and pursue. The court denied any pending motion for Sivak to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), terminated all other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.