Sivak v. Perea

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified in the order as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the actions listed in the caption and represented himself. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as proceeding in forma pauperis. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner who has had three or more qualifying prior cases dismissed from proceeding without paying fees unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury.

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

Appeals and jurisdiction

Sivak did not pay the filing fees. Instead, he appealed some of the orders to the Ninth Circuit. The district court explained that an appeal from an interlocutory order—an order entered before the case is finally resolved—does not take effect for jurisdictional purposes until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these interlocutory appeals, the district court concluded that it retained jurisdiction over the actions.

Ruling

The court held that the deadlines for paying the filing fees had passed. It therefore dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The order states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying that action’s full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each action he seeks to reopen and pursue.

The order also denies any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons the district court denied that status. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions in each case as moot and close all of the listed cases.