Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01948
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay required filing fees following denial of fee waivers.
Lacey Sivak's related prisoner actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees. The order also addressed any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal and closed the cases.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, who was imprisoned in Idaho and represented himself, filed the related cases against Zahida Perea. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court had given Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He did not pay by the deadline and instead appealed some of the rulings. The court concluded it still had authority to act because the appeals had not been permitted by the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed every listed case without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee, and the court denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01948
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the related actions listed in the caption. In each action, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court relied on the prisoner-filing rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner with three or more prior qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not alleged the required danger when he filed these actions.
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal does not transfer jurisdiction over the affected issues until the appeals court permits the appeal. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, so the district court retained authority over the actions.
Ruling
Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed, the court dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The court stated that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying that action's full filing fee, with a separate full fee required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. It directed the Clerk to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and to close all the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.