Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02248
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the prisoner’s actions without prejudice after he failed to pay filing fees following denial of fee waivers.
Lacey Sivak’s listed actions were dismissed without prejudice, and he must pay the full filing fee for each action he wants to reopen. Any pending appeal-related request to proceed without paying fees was denied, and the cases were closed.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Idaho state prisoner Lacey Sivak filed multiple actions while representing himself. The court denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three qualifying prior 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 action. He appealed some of the orders instead of paying, but the appeals did not take jurisdiction away from the district court because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for the interlocutory appeals. The payment deadlines passed.
Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. The court said Sivak may ask to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, with a separate fee required for each case. The court also denied any pending request to proceed without fees on appeal and terminated other pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02248
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified in the order as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions while representing himself. In each action, the court had denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without payment after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had at least three such prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific immediate danger at the time he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner with three or more qualifying dismissals.
The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each action within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed some of the orders to the Ninth Circuit.
Jurisdiction and Filing-Fee Deadline
The court explained that filing a notice of an interlocutory appeal generally transfers jurisdiction over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But for an interlocutory appeal, the notice is not treated as filed until the court of appeals issues an order allowing the appeal. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring these interlocutory appeals, so the district court retained jurisdiction. The deadlines for paying the filing fees had passed.
Rulings
The court dismissed each listed action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying the full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each action he wishes to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons it had denied that status in the district court. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. The Clerk was ordered to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each action 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.