Sivak v. Friedland
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-02940
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Sivak v. Friedland without prejudice after Sivak failed to pay filing fees and denied reconsideration and appeal-fee requests.
Lacey Sivak’s two federal actions were dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the required filing fees after being denied permission to proceed without payment. His reconsideration requests and any pending requests to proceed without payment on appeal were denied.
What happened
In Sivak v. Friedland, Lacey Sivak represented himself in two cases. The court had denied his requests 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 the complaints.
The court had given Sivak 14 days to pay the full filing fee in each case, but the deadlines passed without payment. Sivak also filed requests asking the court to reconsider its payment decisions.
Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed both cases without prejudice, denied Sivak’s reconsideration requests, and denied any pending requests to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to close the cases and terminate the other pending motions as moot.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Friedland · No. 3:24-cv-02940
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed two actions against Michelle T. Friedland and other defendants. In both cases, the court denied Sivak’s requests to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee after three or more qualifying prior dismissals, unless the prisoner shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action.
The court found that Sivak had three or more prior dismissals, had not alleged a specific imminent danger at the time of filing, and did not meet the standard for the exception. The court ordered him to pay the full filing fee within 14 days and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal without prejudice.
Reconsideration requests
Sivak filed requests asking the court to reconsider its decisions denying payment-free status. The court said he had not first obtained permission to file such requests as required by Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9. The court also found no merit in the requests. It explained that imminent danger is assessed when the complaint is filed, so conditions existing at an earlier or later time did not support reconsideration. The court reaffirmed its denial of payment-free status under § 1915(g) and denied the reconsideration requests.
Ruling
Because the deadlines to pay the filing fees had passed, the court dismissed each action without prejudice. The court stated that Sivak could seek to reopen a case by paying the full filing fee for that case. Any pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal was also denied under § 1915(g). The court noted that the Ninth Circuit would independently decide whether Sivak could proceed without paying the fee on appeal.
The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending motions as moot, close both cases, and return without filing any additional 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.