Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01629
- 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 filing fees following denial of prisoner fee-waiver status.
Lacey Sivak’s listed actions were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees after being denied permission to proceed without paying them. He may seek to reopen an action by paying that action’s full filing fee.
What happened
Sivak v. Perea involves multiple cases filed by Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior qualifying dismissals and had not shown an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days.
Sivak appealed some of the fee-related orders instead of paying. The court explained that those appeals did not remove its authority over the cases because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for the interlocutory appeals. The payment deadlines passed without payment.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed every listed case without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee. The clerk was also ordered to deny as moot any other pending motions and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01629
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions against Zahida Perea. In each action, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner with three or more prior qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these interlocutory appeals, the district court retained authority over the actions.
The opinion also states that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial to warrant further review. Any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal was denied under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. The Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying fees in any appeal.
Ruling
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each listed action without prejudice because the deadline to pay the filing fee had passed. The court stated 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 action he seeks to reopen and pursue. The clerk was ordered to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each action and close the cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.