Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02622
- 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 fee-waiver requests.
Lacey Sivak’s listed cases were dismissed without prejudice and closed. He may seek to reopen an individual case after paying that case’s full filing fee. The order also affected any pending motions and any pending request to proceed without paying appellate fees.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed cases. The court denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court had ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days. Sivak appealed some of the fee decisions, but the court said those appeals did not remove its authority to act because the Ninth Circuit had not permitted the interlocutory appeals. The payment deadlines passed without payment.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each case without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee; the court also terminated the other pending motions as moot and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02622
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions without a lawyer. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding IFP after three or more qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals and had not alleged specific imminent danger. It therefore directed him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and Jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the IFP decisions instead of paying the filing 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 considered filed until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these interlocutory appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over the actions.
The opinion also states that any pending motion to proceed IFP on appeal was denied under § 1915(g) for the same reasons Sivak’s IFP requests had been denied. It further states that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed IFP on appeal.
Ruling
The payment deadlines had passed, and Sivak had not paid the required filing fees. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice each action. The court stated that Sivak could move to reopen any action after paying that action’s full filing fee, with a separate full fee required for each case he wished to reopen and pursue.
The Clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close the cases. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.