Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02348
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the cases without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay the required filing fees.
The order directly affects Lacey Sivak’s listed prisoner actions against Zahida Perea by ending them without prejudice unless Sivak pays the required filing fees and successfully moves to reopen them.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed cases against Zahida Perea. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more qualifying prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court gave Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case. He did not pay by the deadline and instead appealed some of the orders. The appeals did not remove the district court’s authority because the Ninth Circuit had not allowed the interlocutory appeals to proceed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each listed action without prejudice. The court said Sivak may move to reopen a case after paying that case’s full filing fee, denied any pending request to proceed without fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02348
- 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 action, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision, part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without paying fees after three or more qualifying prior dismissals unless the prisoner alleges that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury at filing, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without payment as a prisoner subject to the three-strikes rule. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice.
Appeals and jurisdiction
Sivak did not pay the filing fees by the deadline. He instead appealed some of the orders. The court explained that an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finally resolved—does not take effect until the court of appeals permits it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these interlocutory appeals, the district court retained authority over the actions.
The opinion also states that the Ninth Circuit had issued identical orders dismissing many of Sivak’s interlocutory appeals as too insubstantial for further review and treating those orders as the mandates. The district court therefore proceeded with the fee-related dismissals.
Rulings
The court dismissed without prejudice each action listed in the caption. Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and the court stated that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he seeks to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for the same reasons it had denied that status in the district court. The opinion states that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any request to proceed without fees on appeal. The Clerk was ordered to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case and close the listed cases.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.