Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01754
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed the actions without prejudice, denied reconsideration, and denied requests to appeal without paying filing fees.
Lacey Sivak's six actions were dismissed without prejudice after he did not pay the required filing fees. He may seek to reopen an action by paying its full fee, while his reconsideration motions and requests to proceed without paying appellate fees were denied.
What happened
Sivak v. Perea involved six related actions filed by Lacey Sivak, who represented himself. The opinion says Sivak was an Idaho state prisoner.
The court had denied Sivak permission to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior dismissals and had not shown a specific, immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed the actions. Sivak did not pay the full fees by the required deadline.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice. Sivak may ask to reopen a case by paying its full filing fee. The court also denied his reconsideration motions, denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal, ended the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-01754
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak filed the six above-captioned actions while representing himself. The opinion identifies him as an Idaho state prisoner. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision bars a prisoner who has had three or more qualifying prior actions or appeals dismissed from proceeding without prepaying the fee unless the prisoner shows a specific, imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger at the time he filed the actions, and did not meet the requirements for proceeding without paying the fees. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee in each case within fourteen days and warned that the cases could be dismissed without prejudice. The payment deadlines passed without payment.
Reconsideration Motions
Sivak also filed motions seeking reconsideration of the denials of his requests to proceed without prepaying fees. The court explained that, under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9, he first had to obtain permission to file a reconsideration motion. He did not do so, which independently supported denial of the motions.
The court also considered the substance of the motions and found no basis for reconsideration. It explained that the imminent-danger exception is assessed when the complaint is filed, so conditions existing at an earlier or later time were not relevant to that determination. The court therefore reaffirmed its denials under § 1915(g) and denied the reconsideration motions.
Ruling
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that each action be dismissed without prejudice. The order allows Sivak to seek reopening of any case by paying that case's full filing fee; a separate full fee is required for each case he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also denied any pending request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g). It stated that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any appellate request to proceed without paying the fee. The Clerk was ordered to terminate the other pending motions as moot, close all six cases, and return without filing any further documents Sivak submits in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.