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-01581
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 cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay the required filing fees.

Who this affects

Lacey Sivak’s listed cases were dismissed without prejudice. Sivak may seek to reopen an individual case by paying that case’s full filing fee.

What happened

In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak filed the listed cases while representing himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not alleged an immediate danger of serious physical injury.

The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He appealed some of the rulings instead of paying, but the appeals did not transfer jurisdiction to the Ninth Circuit because that court had not permitted the interlocutory appeals.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each case without prejudice because Sivak did not pay the filing fees. The court said he could move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without paying the fee on appeal, terminated other pending motions as moot, and closed 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-01581
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
July 11, 2024

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the listed cases against Zahida Perea. In each case, the court denied Sivak’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision, part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more prior qualifying dismissals unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury.

The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed these actions. The court also determined that he did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with many prior lawsuits dismissed as frivolous. It ordered him to pay the full filing fee in each case 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 court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finished—normally transfers jurisdiction over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an interlocutory appeal is not treated as 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 jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court dismissed each listed action without prejudice because the deadline to pay the filing fees had passed. Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying that case’s full filing fee; a separate full fee is required for each case he seeks to reopen and pursue.

The court also denied any pending motion to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied that status in the district court. The Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying fees in any appeal. 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.