Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01647
- 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 filing fees required under the prisoner three-strikes rule.
Lacey Sivak's multiple actions against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay the required filing fees. Sivak may seek to reopen an action by paying its full filing fee, with a separate fee required for each case.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak filed multiple actions 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 shown an immediate risk of serious physical injury.
The court had given Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. He did not pay by the deadline, although he appealed some of the fee-related orders. The Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for those appeals, so the district court retained authority over the actions.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. Sivak may move to reopen an action after paying its full filing fee; the court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the fee on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01647
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the many actions listed in the order. In each case, the court denied his motion to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees when the prisoner has had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger when he filed the actions, and did not meet the exception to the three-dismissal rule.
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 filing fees by the deadline. He appealed some of the orders denying his requests to proceed without paying fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but such an 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 retained authority over the actions.
Ruling
The court dismissed without prejudice each of the above-captioned actions because Sivak did not pay the required filing fees. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying that action'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 to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. It stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying the fee on appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases. The order did not decide the underlying claims against Zahida Perea.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.