Sivak v. Officer of the United States

Background

Lacey Sivak filed the six above-captioned actions while representing himself. The opinion describes him as an Idaho state prisoner. In each action, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court previously denied those requests under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which limits that status for a prisoner who has had three or more prior cases dismissed, unless the prisoner alleges a specific imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. The court found that Sivak had three or more qualifying dismissals and had not met the imminent-danger exception.

Failure to Pay Filing Fees

The court directed Sivak to pay the full filing fee in each action within 14 days or face dismissal without prejudice. The payment deadlines passed. The court therefore dismissed each of the six actions without prejudice. The order states that Sivak may move to reopen any of them after paying the full filing fee for each case he wishes to reopen and pursue.

Reconsideration Motions

Sivak also filed motions seeking reconsideration of the denials of his requests to proceed without paying filing fees. Under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9, a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must first obtain permission from the court and satisfy specified requirements involving a material difference in fact or law, newly emerging material facts or a change in law, or the court's failure to consider material facts previously presented.

The court stated that Sivak had violated the local rule by filing his reconsideration motions without first seeking permission. The court further found no merit in the motions. It explained that the imminent-danger exception is assessed when the complaint is filed and that allegations about conditions existing at an earlier or later time do not establish the exception. The court reaffirmed its denials of fee-waiver status and denied the reconsideration motions to the extent it construed the pending motions as requests for reconsideration.

Other Dispositions

The court denied any pending request to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal under § 1915(g) for the same reasons. It noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would independently review any appellate request for that status. The clerk was directed to terminate as moot all other pending motions in each case, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Sivak submitted in the closed cases.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin dismissed all six actions without prejudice, denied the reconsideration motions, denied any pending appellate fee-waiver requests, terminated the remaining motions as moot, and closed the cases.