Sivak v. Parea
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02344
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Parea, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed six actions without prejudice, denied reconsideration, and denied requests to proceed without filing fees on appeal.
Lacey Sivak and the six actions he filed against Zahida Perea; the order also addressed Sivak’s requests for reconsideration and to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal.
What happened
In Sivak v. Parea, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed six actions against Zahida Perea. The court had denied Sivak permission to proceed without paying filing fees because he had three or more prior dismissals and had not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed.
The court had given Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case, but the deadlines passed. The court therefore dismissed each action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to seek reopening by paying the full fee for each case.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also denied Sivak’s motions seeking reconsideration of the fee-waiver decisions and denied any pending requests to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the other pending motions as moot and close the cases.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Parea · No. 3:24-cv-02344
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified by the court as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the six above-captioned actions 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 stated that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action, and did not meet the standard for the statutory exception allowing a prisoner with three or more prior dismissals to proceed without paying fees.
The court ordered Sivak to pay the full filing fee within 14 days or risk dismissal without prejudice. The payment deadline passed in each case without payment.
Rulings
The court dismissed each of the six actions without prejudice. It stated that Sivak could move to reopen any action after paying the full filing fee, and that a separate full filing fee would be required for each case he wished to reopen and pursue.
The court also addressed Sivak’s motions for reconsideration of the denials of permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court stated that Sivak had not first sought permission to file those motions as required by Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). The court further found that the motions lacked merit because the imminent-danger exception is assessed when the complaint is filed, and the allegations did not justify reconsideration. To the extent the pending motions were requests for reconsideration, the court denied them and reaffirmed the denials under § 1915(g).
The court denied any pending request to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal for the same reasons. It noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently review any appellate request. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Sivak submitted in the closed cases.
Effect of the Order
The order ended the six district-court actions without prejudice based on Sivak’s failure to pay the filing fees after being denied permission to proceed without paying them. It did not state that Sivak was barred from seeking reopening after payment of the required fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.