Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak did not pay required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak's listed actions against Zahida Perea; each action was dismissed without prejudice, and any pending request to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee was denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees at the outset. The court denied those requests because Sivak had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. Instead of paying, he appealed some of the orders. The court explained that those appeals did not remove its authority over the cases because the Ninth Circuit had not given permission for the appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed every listed action without prejudice because the payment deadline had passed. Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee. The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02133
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. In each action, he asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without prepaying fees. The court had denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner with three or more prior qualifying dismissals from proceeding without prepaying fees unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had the required prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific immediate danger at the time of filing, and did not meet the standard for avoiding the filing-fee requirement.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each action 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 appeal from an interlocutory, or non-final, order generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But under the rule discussed in the opinion, an interlocutory appeal is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court retained authority over these actions.
Rulings
The court held that the deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. It therefore dismissed without prejudice each action listed in the caption. The opinion states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying that action's full filing fee; a separate full fee is required for each case he seeks 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 the district court had denied that status. The opinion notes that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close all the listed cases.
Classification basis
This was a procedural order. The court resolved filing-fee and prisoner fee-waiver issues without deciding the underlying legal questions, if any, in Sivak's actions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.