Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02339
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the prisoner’s cases without prejudice after he failed to pay required filing fees.
Lacey Sivak’s listed actions against Zahida Perea were each dismissed without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay the required filing fees; the cases were closed, subject to a possible motion to reopen after payment.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions against Zahida Perea. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior dismissals and did not show imminent 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 orders instead, but the appeals court had not given permission for those interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained authority over the cases. Sivak did not pay the fees by the deadline.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee. The court also denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal and terminated the other pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02339
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the above-captioned actions against Zahida Perea. In each action, the court denied Sivak’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That provision generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying filing fees after three or more prior qualifying dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court stated that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged specific imminent danger when he filed these actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with many prior dismissals. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying the filing fees. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the appeals court, but a notice of appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the appeals court grants permission to bring the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission, the district court concluded that it retained authority over these actions.
Disposition
The payment deadlines had passed, and Sivak had not paid the required filing fees. The court therefore dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The court stated that, after paying the full filing fee, Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action he wants to pursue, with a separate full filing fee required for each case.
The order also states that any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal is denied under § 1915(g) for the same reasons. The Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether to grant that status for any appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.