Sivak v. Perea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02624
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed each action without prejudice, denied reconsideration, and denied Sivak’s requests to proceed without paying appeal fees.
Lacey Sivak’s six actions against Zahida Perea were dismissed without prejudice. Sivak may seek to reopen an action by paying that action’s full filing fee.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the actions against Zahida Perea. The court had denied his requests to proceed without paying filing fees because he had at least three prior dismissals and had not shown specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed.
The deadlines to pay the filing fees passed. The court therefore dismissed each action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to seek reopening by paying the full fee for each case. The court also rejected Sivak’s challenges to the earlier filing-fee rulings.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Sivak’s motions for reconsideration, denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal, terminated the other pending motions as moot, and closed the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Perea · No. 3:24-cv-02624
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the six above-captioned actions against Zahida Perea. In each action, the court denied Sivak’s 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 adequately alleges imminent danger of serious physical injury when filing the action.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed, and did not meet the standard for the exception. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. The payment deadlines passed without payment.
Rulings
The court dismissed each of the six actions without prejudice. It stated that Sivak may move to reopen any action after paying its full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee is required for each action he wants to reopen and pursue.
The court also addressed Sivak’s pending motions seeking reconsideration of the earlier filing-fee rulings. Under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party must first obtain permission to file such a motion by showing a qualifying difference in facts or law, newly arising material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts previously presented. The court found that Sivak had not first sought permission as required. It further found no merit in his argument that he qualified for the imminent-danger exception, explaining that imminent danger is assessed when the complaint is filed and that conditions at other times are not relevant. The court therefore denied the motions for reconsideration and reaffirmed its denial of permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court denied any pending motion to proceed without paying fees on appeal under § 1915(g) for the same reasons. It noted that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying fees on appeal. The Clerk was ordered to terminate all other pending motions as moot, close all six 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.