Sivak v. Parea

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the five actions while representing himself. In each case, the court denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action, and did not meet the standard for proceeding without paying the fee as a prisoner with three prior qualifying dismissals.

The court ordered Sivak to pay the entire filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. Instead of paying, Sivak appealed the orders to the Ninth Circuit. The district court explained that an interlocutory appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed issues to the appeals court, but an appeal from an interlocutory order is not treated as filed until the appeals court allows it. Because the Ninth Circuit had not granted permission for these appeals, the district court retained authority over the actions. The deadline for paying the filing fees passed.

Rulings

The court dismissed each of the five actions without prejudice. The opinion states that Sivak may file a motion to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and 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 permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal under § 1915(g), for the same reasons it denied that status in the district court. The opinion states that the Ninth Circuit will independently review any request to proceed without paying the appellate fee and will decide whether to grant that status.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin directed the clerk to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case, close the cases, and return without filing any additional documents Sivak submits in the closed cases.