Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02626
- 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 the required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s multiple actions against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice because Sivak did not pay the required filing fees. The order also affected any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal and closed the listed cases.
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 danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. Sivak appealed some fee-related orders, but the appeals did not transfer authority over these cases to the appeals court because that court had not allowed the appeals to proceed. Sivak did not pay the fees by the deadline.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen an action after paying its full filing fee, and each action requires a separate 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. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02626
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, described in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions while representing himself. In each action, he asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without prepaying fees. The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed these actions, and did not meet the requirements for proceeding without paying the fees. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee in each action within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders concerning his requests to proceed without paying fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case is finally resolved, does not become effective until the appeals court grants permission to bring it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court retained authority over these 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
Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed and Sivak had not paid them, the court dismissed without prejudice each listed action. The opinion states that Sivak may pay the full filing fee and then file a motion to reopen any action, but a separate full filing fee is required for each action he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), terminated all other pending motions as moot, and closed all the listed cases. The order was entered by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.