Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01650
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the listed cases without prejudice after Sivak did not pay required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s listed cases were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen an individual case by paying that case’s full fee. Any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal was denied, and the other pending motions were terminated as moot.
What happened
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 prior qualifying dismissals and did not show an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court gave him 14 days to pay the full fees, but he did not do so.
The court ruled that Sivak’s appeals of some earlier orders did not prevent it from acting because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for those appeals. Because the payment deadline had passed, the court dismissed each listed case without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case by paying that case’s full filing fee. The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered the July 11, 2024 order of dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01650
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the listed actions against Zahida Perea. In each action, the court had 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 a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more such prior dismissals, had not alleged the required imminent danger when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fees.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal ordinarily transfers jurisdiction 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 permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court retained jurisdiction. The opinion also states that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s similar interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.
Rulings
The court dismissed without prejudice each listed action because Sivak’s deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The court stated that Sivak may file a motion to reopen an action after paying that action’s full filing fee, and that a separate full fee is required for each action he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons. It explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each action and close all the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.