Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02126
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees following denial of fee waivers.
Lacey Sivak’s listed cases were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen an individual case by paying that case’s full fee; other pending motions were terminated as moot, and any pending request to proceed without fees on appeal was denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions. 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 case. Sivak appealed some of the orders, but the appeals did not transfer jurisdiction because the Ninth Circuit had not authorized interlocutory appeals. Sivak did not pay the fees by the deadline.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court said Sivak could move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without fees on appeal for the same reasons, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02126
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. The cases bear numerous docket numbers in the same caption, including 24-cv-01579-AMO (PR) through 24-cv-03019-AMO (PR), as listed in the order.
Filing-fee rulings
In each case, the court denied Sivak’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which 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 three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged specific imminent danger at the time he filed the actions, and did not meet the applicable exception.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers jurisdiction 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 retained jurisdiction.
Ruling
The deadline to pay the filing fees had passed. The court therefore dismissed each listed action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying that action’s full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The order also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal under § 1915(g) for the same reasons. It stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without fees in that court. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions in each case as moot and close all the cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.