Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01891
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay the required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s listed actions were dismissed without prejudice after he failed to pay the required filing fee in each case. He may seek to reopen an action by paying that action’s full fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The court denied those requests because Sivak had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. Sivak appealed some of the fee-related orders, but the appeals did not transfer authority over the cases to the appeals court because that court had not allowed the appeals to proceed.
Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice because Sivak did not pay the filing fees. The court said Sivak may ask to reopen an action after paying that action’s full fee, and directed the clerk to end the pending motions as moot and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01891
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions without a lawyer. In each action, he asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that generally prevents a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying fees 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 the actions. It directed him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the filing fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—a mid-case appeal from an order that does not finally resolve the case—does not become effective until the appeals court permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court retained authority over these actions. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had issued identical orders dismissing many of Sivak’s interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.
Ruling
The payment deadline had passed, and Sivak had not paid the required filing fees. The court therefore dismissed each above-captioned action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak could move to reopen any action after paying that action’s full filing fee. The court also denied any pending motion to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), directed the clerk to terminate all other pending motions as moot, and ordered the cases closed.
Effect
The order ended the listed actions without prejudice based on nonpayment of the filing fees. It did not decide the underlying claims. Any action Sivak seeks to reopen requires payment of the full filing fee for that action.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.