Sivak v. Friedman
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02258
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Friedman, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed both actions without prejudice, denied reconsideration and appellate fee waivers after Sivak missed filing-fee deadlines.
The order directly affected Lacey Sivak and both of his actions against Michelle T. Friedland and the other defendants. The actions were dismissed without prejudice, and Sivak’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees, including on appeal, were denied.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, representing himself, filed two actions against Michelle T. Friedland and other defendants. The court had denied Sivak permission to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed. Sivak did not pay the required fees by the deadlines.
The court dismissed both actions without prejudice, meaning Sivak may seek to reopen them by paying the full filing fee for each case. The court also considered Sivak’s motions challenging the denial of permission to proceed without paying fees and denied them. It found that he had not followed the required procedure for asking for reconsideration and that his allegations did not show a basis for reconsideration.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also denied any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed both cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Friedman · No. 3:24-cv-02258
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the two actions identified above against Michelle T. Friedland and other defendants. Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits that status for prisoners who have had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed, unless they show that they faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when they filed the case.
The court found that Sivak had three or more qualifying prior dismissals, had not alleged specific imminent danger at the time of filing, and did not meet the exception to the filing-fee requirement. The court directed him to pay the full filing fee in each case within 14 days and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal without prejudice. The payment deadlines passed without payment.
Rulings
The court dismissed each action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak may move to reopen either case after paying that case’s full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each case he seeks to reopen.
The court also addressed Sivak’s motions for reconsideration of the earlier orders denying permission to proceed without paying filing fees. Under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9, a party must first obtain leave of court before filing such a motion. The court found that Sivak had not done so and that this violation alone supported denial. Independently, the court found no merit in the motions. It explained that the imminent-danger question is assessed when the complaint is filed, and that Sivak’s allegations did not provide grounds to reconsider the earlier rulings. The requests for reconsideration were therefore DENIED, and the court reaffirmed its denial of permission to proceed without paying fees under § 1915(g).
The court also DENIED any pending request to proceed without paying fees on appeal for the same reasons. It noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review the record if Sivak sought that status there. The Clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions, close both cases, and return without filing any further documents Sivak submitted in the closed cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.