Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-00783
- 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 requests to appeal without paying fees.
Lacey Sivak, the self-represented prisoner who filed the actions, must pay the full filing fee for each case to seek reopening; the cases and their other pending motions were closed or terminated.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, who represented himself, filed the listed actions while imprisoned. The court denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior qualifying dismissals and had not shown an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days or face dismissal. He did not pay by the deadline and instead appealed some orders. The court said it still had authority to act because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for those interlocutory appeals.
Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, meaning Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee. The court 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-00783
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, described in the order as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions while representing himself. The cases carry multiple docket numbers, including 24-cv-00764-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00765-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00783-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00784-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00785-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00786-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00787-AMO (PR), 24-cv-00788-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01067-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01069-AMO (PR), and the additional cases listed in the caption.
In each case, Sivak asked 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 bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger at the time he filed, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying fees as a prisoner with many prior dismissals.
Appeals and jurisdiction
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the fees and instead appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally 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. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court concluded that it retained authority over these actions.
Ruling
The court held that the deadline to pay the filing fees had passed. It therefore dismissed without prejudice each above-captioned action. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying that case’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 to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied Sivak’s requests in the district court. The order notes that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. The Clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions and close the cases. The order did 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.