Sivak v. Perea

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned cases against Zahida Perea while representing himself. The opinion addresses numerous related case numbers, including 24-cv-01579-AMO (PR), 24-cv-01580-AMO (PR), and others listed in the caption.

Prior filing-fee rulings

In each case, the court denied Sivak’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying the fee after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fees.

The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Sivak did not pay the fees and instead appealed some of the orders.

Appeals and jurisdiction

The court explained that an appeal from an interlocutory order generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an interlocutory appeal is not treated as filed until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted Sivak permission to bring the interlocutory appeals, the district court retained authority over these actions.

Rulings

Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed, the court dismissed each action without prejudice. The opinion states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any case after paying that case’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 motion to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), for the same reasons underlying the district court’s earlier denials. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without paying the fee on appeal. Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions in each case as moot and close the cases.