Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02711
- 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 and the multiple listed actions he filed; each action was closed, subject to a possible motion to reopen after payment of its full filing fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak filed multiple actions while representing himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without prepaying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. He did not pay by the deadline and instead appealed some of the orders. The court concluded that it still had authority to act because the Ninth Circuit had not permitted those interlocutory appeals.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court said Sivak may move to reopen an action after paying its full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without prepaying the appeal fee, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02711
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, described in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. In each action, the court denied his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. 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 imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fees as a prisoner with three or more qualifying dismissals. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee in each action within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the fee-related orders instead of paying the filing fees. The court explained that an appeal from an interlocutory order—an appeal before final judgment—does not take effect until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court concluded that it retained jurisdiction over the actions.
Ruling
The payment deadlines had passed. The court therefore dismissed each listed action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each action 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), terminated all other pending motions as moot, and closed the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.