Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01630
- 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 required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak, whose listed actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees; the respondent and the court are also affected because the cases were closed.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions. The court denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each action within fourteen days. He appealed some orders instead of paying, but the Ninth Circuit had not authorized those temporary appeals, so the district court retained authority over the cases. The payment deadlines passed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee; the court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the appeal fee and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01630
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified in the order as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions while representing himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without prepaying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally prevents a prisoner with three or more prior qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying the filing fee unless the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed these actions. It also found that he did not satisfy the applicable standard for proceeding without paying the fees. The court therefore directed him to pay the full filing fee in each case within fourteen days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the filing fees. The court explained that an appeal from an order that is not yet final generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an appeal of this type is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring the temporary appeals, the district court concluded that it still had authority over these actions.
The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had issued identical orders dismissing many of Sivak’s temporary appeals as too insubstantial for further review. Those proceedings did not prevent the district court from addressing the unpaid filing fees here.
Ruling
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that each listed action be dismissed without prejudice because Sivak’s deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The order states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The order also states that any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal is denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons. The clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close all the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.