Sivak v. Officer of the United States
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-03015
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak did not pay the required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak's numerous actions were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees after the court denied his requests to proceed without paying them. He may seek to reopen an action by paying that action's full fee.
What happened
Lacey Sivak v. Zahida Perea involved numerous actions filed by Sivak, who represented himself while imprisoned in Idaho. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more prior dismissals and did not allege an immediate threat of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each action. He did not pay, and his appeals from some of the orders did not prevent the district court from acting because the appeals had not been authorized by the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases. Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying that case's full filing fee.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Officer of the United States · No. 3:24-cv-03015
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
The opinion covers the many case numbers listed in the caption, including No. 24-cv-01579-AMO (PR) and the other actions identified there. Lacey Sivak, described as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the actions representing himself.
In each action, the court denied Sivak's request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally prevents a prisoner who has had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim from proceeding without paying the filing fee, unless the prisoner alleges an 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, and did not meet the requirements for proceeding without paying the fees.
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals, but such an appeal is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits it. The court therefore retained authority over these actions because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to appeal.
Rulings
The deadline to pay the filing fees passed. The court therefore dismissed each action without prejudice. The opinion states that Sivak may pay the full filing fee and move to reopen any action, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court denied that status. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close all of the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.