Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01580
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the prisoner’s cases without prejudice after he failed to pay required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s listed cases were all dismissed without prejudice and closed. Sivak may seek to reopen an individual case by paying that case’s full filing fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed cases. 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 fourteen days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He did not pay by the deadline and instead 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 granted permission for the interlocutory appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed every listed case without prejudice, meaning Sivak may seek to reopen a case by paying its full filing fee. The clerk was ordered to terminate the other pending motions as moot and close the cases; any pending request to proceed without paying the appeal fee was also denied under the prisoner-filing-fee statute.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01580
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and a self-represented litigant, filed the many actions listed in the caption 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 generally bars a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying the fee 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 of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fees. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee in each action within fourteen days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the fees. 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 grants permission to bring the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted that permission, the district court retained authority over these actions. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial to warrant further review.
Ruling
Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed, the court dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The court stated that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each action he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons. It explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any appeal request and decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying that fee. The clerk was ordered to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.