Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02625
- 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’s numerous actions against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice and closed. Sivak may seek to reopen an individual action by paying that action’s full filing fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the actions covered by the order.
The court had denied Sivak permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court gave him 14 days to pay the full fees, but he did not do so.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases. Sivak may seek to reopen a case by paying its full filing fee.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02625
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions while representing himself. The order covers the numerous case numbers listed in the caption, including No. 24-cv-01579-AMO (PR).
Filing-fee rulings
In each action, the court had denied Sivak’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger at the time he filed, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fees.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each action within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Sivak appealed some of the fee-related orders instead of paying. The court explained that an appeal from an interlocutory order—an appeal before the case is finally resolved—does not take effect until the court of appeals grants permission for the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted that permission, the district court retained jurisdiction. The order also noted that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s similar interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.
Rulings
Because the deadlines for paying the filing fees had passed, the court ordered that each above-captioned action be dismissed without prejudice. Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying that action’s full filing fee; a separate full filing fee is required for each case he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. The Clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close all the cases. The order was signed by United States District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on July 11, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.