Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01504
- 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 appeal fee-waiver motions.
Lacey Sivak’s multiple actions were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees after his requests to proceed without paying them were denied. Any pending appeal fee-waiver motions were also denied, and the cases were closed.
What happened
The case is Sivak v. Perea, involving multiple actions filed by Lacey Sivak, who represented himself. Sivak is described as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. He did not pay by the deadline and instead appealed some of the orders. The court determined that it still had authority to act because the Ninth Circuit had not permitted those appeals to proceed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, meaning Sivak may seek to reopen an action by paying its full filing fee. The judge also denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01504
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, described in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions while representing himself. In each action, he asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP.
The court denied Sivak’s IFP requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged such imminent danger when he filed the actions, and did not meet the requirements for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with multiple qualifying dismissals.
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 opinion explains that an interlocutory appeal ordinarily transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits the appeal. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, so the district court retained authority over these actions.
Rulings
The deadline for paying the filing fee in each action had passed. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each above-captioned action. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen an action after paying its full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each action he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied Sivak’s district-court IFP requests. The order notes that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought IFP status there and would decide whether to grant that status.
Finally, the Clerk was ordered to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each action and close all of the above-captioned cases. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims, if any, on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.