Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02131
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the prisoner’s cases without prejudice after he failed to pay filing fees following denial of fee-waiver status.
Lacey Sivak’s listed actions were dismissed without prejudice after he failed to pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen a case by paying that case’s full filing fee.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed cases against Zahida Perea. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He did not pay, and instead appealed some of the fee-related orders. The court said it still had authority to act because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for those interlocutory appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed every listed action without prejudice. The court said Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02131
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the listed actions against Zahida Perea. The opinion covers numerous related cases, including Case Nos. 24-cv-01579-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01580-AMO (PR), and the other case numbers listed in the caption.
In each case, the court denied Sivak’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner generally may not proceed without paying fees after three or more prior actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner shows imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with many prior dismissed lawsuits.
Appeals and filing-fee deadline
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the fees and instead 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 an 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, the district court concluded that it still had authority over these actions.
Ruling
The court dismissed each listed action without prejudice because the deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. It stated that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any case after paying that case’s 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 fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons Sivak was denied that status in the district court. The court explained that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. The Clerk was ordered to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.