Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02349
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the cases without prejudice after Sivak did not pay required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s numerous cases against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice because Sivak did not pay the required filing fees. The order also addressed any pending requests to proceed without fees on appeal and closed the cases.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the cases against Zahida Perea. The court had denied Sivak permission 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 gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He appealed some of the fee-related orders instead of paying, but the appeals did not remove the district court’s authority over the cases because the Ninth Circuit had not allowed those interlocutory appeals.
Because the payment deadline passed, the court dismissed each case without prejudice. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also denied any pending request to proceed without fees on appeal, directed the Clerk to terminate the other pending motions as moot, and ordered the cases closed.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02349
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who was representing himself, filed the group of cases captioned Sivak v. Perea. The opinion lists numerous related case numbers. In each case, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without prepayment of fees.
The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals that counted under the statute, had not alleged a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the cases, and did not qualify for the statutory exception to the filing-fee requirement.
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the fees.
Jurisdiction over the appeals
The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the court of appeals allows the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring the interlocutory appeals, the district court retained authority over these cases.
Ruling
The deadline to pay the filing fees had passed. The court therefore dismissed each action without prejudice. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any case after paying the full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee will be required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. It stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without fees in an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases. The order was entered by United States District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.