Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02337
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the listed cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees required after denial of fee-waiver status.
Lacey Sivak and the listed cases he filed; the order required a full filing fee for each case he wished to reopen.
What happened
In Sivak v. Perea, Lacey Sivak, a 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 an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He did not pay, and the deadline passed. Although Sivak appealed some earlier orders, the appeals did not remove the district court’s authority because the appeals had not been permitted by the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each listed action without prejudice. Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee. The clerk was also directed to terminate the remaining motions as moot and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02337
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 11, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified as an Idaho state prisoner and a frequent litigant, filed the listed actions while representing himself. In each case, the court previously denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act commonly called the “three-strikes” rule. The court found that Sivak had three or more qualifying 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. Instead, he appealed some of the orders denying fee-waiver status.
Jurisdiction over the appeals
The court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the court of appeals. But an interlocutory appeal is not considered filed until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not permitted Sivak’s appeals, the district court retained authority over these actions. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed many of Sivak’s interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review.
Ruling
The court dismissed each listed action without prejudice because Sivak did not pay the required filing fee by the deadline. The court stated that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any case after paying the full filing fee for that case, and that a separate full fee is required for each case he wishes to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons the district court had denied that status. The court said the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. Finally, the clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions in each case as moot and close the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.