Sivak v. Schroeder

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the many listed actions while representing himself. The cases presented nearly identical claims, including requests for court orders compelling conduct by federal judges of the Northern District of California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, as well as Idaho state court judges and various court personnel. The opinion says Sivak sought relief concerning his underlying conviction and his cases involving similar filings.

The court noted that Sivak had filed more than 100 cases in the Northern District of California and that a nationwide search through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records database produced hundreds of results under his name. The Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously determined that he qualified as a prisoner with at least three dismissals counting as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Requests to Proceed Without Paying Filing Fees

In many of the actions, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. Under § 1915(g), a prisoner with at least three qualifying dismissals generally cannot proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed.

The court found that the complaints did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing. It therefore denied Sivak’s motions for permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Other Grounds Identified by the Court

The court stated that, even if Sivak’s requests to proceed without paying fees had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal grounds. Those grounds included the rule that certain civil-rights claims cannot proceed when success would call into question an existing conviction or sentence unless that conviction or sentence has first been invalidated; limits on federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; the lack of federal power to order state courts or state judicial officers to perform their duties; and immunity protections for court clerks and judges for specified conduct performed in their judicial roles.

The court also stated that Sivak could appeal a federal judge’s decision about permission to proceed without paying fees to the Ninth Circuit when appropriate, but could not ask another judge in the same district to review that decision. The court concluded that recusal was not warranted despite the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Sivak had previously named the judge signing this order as a defendant in four cases, which another judge had dismissed with prejudice, but says Sivak did not seek recusal in the actions addressed here.

Disposition

The court dismissed with prejudice all the listed actions. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the actions. It also ordered the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Sivak submits in those closed cases.