Sivak v. Perea

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the listed actions. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally bars a prisoner who has had three or more qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding without paying the fee, unless the prisoner alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed these actions. It directed him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.

Appeals and jurisdiction

Sivak did not pay the filing fees by the deadline. Instead, he appealed some of the orders denying his requests to proceed without paying the fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finally resolved—does not become effective until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over the actions.

Rulings

The court dismissed each of the listed actions without prejudice. It stated 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 seeks to reopen and pursue.

The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g) for the same reasons. It explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying the fee on appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.

Effect of the order

The dismissals were without prejudice, so the order itself does not bar Sivak from seeking to reopen a case under the stated payment requirement. The opinion does not address the underlying merits of the claims in the actions.