Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2024

Sivak v. Perea

Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Docket
3:24-cv-01945
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay required filing fees.

Who this affects

Lacey Sivak and the numerous above-captioned actions. Each case was closed, and Sivak must pay a full filing fee for each case he wants to reopen.

What happened

Lacey Sivak, representing himself, filed the actions against Zahida Perea. The court had denied Sivak permission to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury.

The court gave Sivak 14 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 said it still had authority to act because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for those interlocutory appeals.

The court dismissed every action without prejudice, meaning the cases may be reopened after Sivak pays the full filing fee for each one. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal and directed the clerk to close the cases.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01945
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
July 11, 2024

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who was representing himself, filed the above-captioned actions against Zahida Perea. The order covers numerous cases with separate case numbers.

In each case, the court previously denied Sivak's request to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called in forma pauperis status or IFP status. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had three or more prior federal actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim generally may not proceed without paying the fee unless the prisoner alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger when he filed, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a three-striker.

The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days in each case or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but such an appeal is not considered filed until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over the cases.

Rulings

The court held that the deadline for paying the filing fee had passed. It therefore dismissed each above-captioned action without prejudice. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying the 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 motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.