Sivak v. Parea

Background

The order covers the numerous actions listed in the caption, including Case Nos. 24-cv-01579-AMO (PR) through 24-cv-03019-AMO (PR). Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who was representing himself, filed the actions against Zahida Perea.

In each action, the court denied Sivak’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner who has had three or more prior qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless the prisoner alleges a specific, immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged that type of danger when he filed, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment.

The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. He did not pay the fees. Instead, he appealed some of the orders denying his requests to proceed without payment.

Appeal-related jurisdiction

The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finished—normally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an appeal from an interlocutory order is not considered filed until the court of appeals grants permission to pursue it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring the relevant appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over these actions.

Disposition

The court dismissed each listed action without prejudice because Sivak’s deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying that action’s full filing fee, with a separate full fee required for each case he seeks to reopen and pursue.

The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), terminated all other pending motions as moot, and ordered the Clerk to close the cases. The order resolved the filing-fee and case-closure issues; it did not decide the underlying claims.