Sivak v. Fletcher

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the many actions listed in the caption. The court said the actions presented nearly identical claims. They included requests for court orders compelling conduct by federal judges of the Northern District of California, the Ninth Circuit, and the District of Idaho, as well as Idaho state judges and various court personnel. Sivak also sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his cases.

Filing-fee requests

In many of the actions, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bars a litigant with at least three qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying the fee unless the litigant shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed. The court noted that Sivak had filed more than 100 cases in the Northern District of California, that a nationwide federal court search showed hundreds of lawsuits in his name, and that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found him to be a three-strikes litigant.

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

Reasons for dismissal

The court further stated that the lawsuits would be barred even if the filing-fee requests were granted. It cited the rule barring civil-rights damages claims that would undermine an existing conviction or sentence unless that conviction or sentence had first been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise set aside. It also cited limits on federal interference with ongoing state proceedings; the rule that federal courts cannot issue mandamus orders directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in performing their duties; and absolute or quasi-judicial immunity protecting judges and court clerks for actions taken in their judicial roles.

The court added that Sivak could appeal a federal judge’s decision about permission to proceed without paying the filing fee to the Ninth Circuit as appropriate, but could not ask another judge in the same district to review that decision. It also concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the undersigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Sivak had previously named the undersigned judge as a defendant in four cases and that another judge had dismissed those cases with prejudice; Sivak did not seek recusal in the actions addressed here.

Ruling and effect

The court dismissed the above-captioned actions with prejudice. It directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the actions. The Clerk was also ordered to return, without filing, any further documents Sivak submitted in those closed cases.