Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01631
- 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 the required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s numerous cases against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay the required filing fees; he may seek to reopen individual cases by paying each case’s full fee.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the cases against Zahida Perea. The court denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more prior dismissals and did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case, but he did not do so. Although he appealed some orders, the appeals did not remove the district court’s authority because the appeals court had not permitted those interlocutory appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each case without prejudice. The court said Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01631
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned actions without a lawyer against Zahida Perea. The opinion addresses numerous cases 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 who has had three or more prior cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim generally may not proceed without paying the fee unless the prisoner alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with three prior dismissals.
Appeals and Filing-Fee Deadline
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—a mid-case appeal of an order that does not end the case—does not transfer authority over the issues to the appeals court until the appeals court permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court retained authority over the actions. The opinion also notes that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s similar interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.
Ruling
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that each above-captioned action be dismissed without prejudice because the deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The court stated that Sivak may move to reopen any case 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 court also denied any pending request for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), terminated all other pending motions as moot, and ordered the cases closed. The court did not decide the underlying merits of Sivak’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.