Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Sivak v. Perea: Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees following denial of permission to proceed without prepayment.
Lacey Sivak's listed actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen an action by paying that case's full filing fee.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions. The court had 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 ordered Sivak to pay each full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the fees and instead appealed some of the orders. The court said those appeals did not remove its authority over the cases because the appeals had not been permitted by the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court said Sivak may ask to reopen a case after paying its full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal for the same reasons, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02341
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the numerous actions listed in the caption against Zahida Perea. In each action, the court denied Sivak permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That statute generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action.
The court found that Sivak had three or more qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the filing fees. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee in each action 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—an appeal before the case is finished—generally transfers authority over the issues on appeal to the court of appeals. But an interlocutory notice of appeal is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits the appeal. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court concluded that it retained authority over the actions.
Ruling
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin held that the deadline to pay the filing fees had passed. The order therefore dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The court stated that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying that action's full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending request for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons Sivak was denied that status in the district court. The court said the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying the appeal fee. 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.