Sivak v. Parea

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions against Zahida Perea while representing himself. The court had denied Sivak’s requests to proceed without prepaying filing fees, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis or IFP. The court relied on the prisoner-filing rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally bars a prisoner with three or more qualifying prior dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the prisoner alleges an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Sivak had not met that exception.

In each case, the court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. Sivak appealed some of the orders instead of paying. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finished—does not become effective for jurisdictional purposes until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court retained authority over the cases. The opinion also states that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s similar interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.

Ruling

The deadline to pay the filing fee had passed, and Sivak had not paid it. The court therefore dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The order permits Sivak to move to reopen any case after paying that case’s full filing fee; a separate full fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.

The order also denies any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), stating that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could receive that status for an appeal. Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions in each case as moot and close the cases.