Sivak v. Fletcher

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the numerous related actions listed in the order. The cases presented nearly identical claims, including petitions asking the court to compel conduct by federal judges of the Northern District of California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Idaho state-court judges, and court personnel. The opinion states that Sivak sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his cases.

Filing-fee requests

In many of the cases, Sivak asked for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prevents a prisoner who has had at least three qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding without paying unless the prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found Sivak to be a “three-striker,” and that he had filed more than 100 cases in the Northern District of California.

The court found that the complaints did not show imminent danger at the time they were filed. It therefore denied Sivak’s motions for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds identified by the court

The court further stated that, even if a filing-fee request were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines. It cited Heck v. Humphrey for the rule that certain damages claims challenging a conviction or sentence cannot proceed unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. It cited Younger v. Harris concerning federal abstention from interfering with certain state criminal proceedings. It cited Demos v. U.S. District Court for the rule that federal courts cannot issue orders directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in performing their duties. It also cited Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada concerning judicial-process immunity for court clerks and limits on seeking review of one district judge’s decision from another district judge. The court additionally stated that judges are immune from damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacities.

The opinion notes that Sivak had previously named Judge Martinez-Olguin as a defendant in four cases. It states that Sivak did not seek her recusal in the listed cases and that recusal was not warranted based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.

Ruling and case status

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that the listed actions be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the actions. The Clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Sivak submitted in those closed cases.