Sivak v. Bennett

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the many actions listed in the caption. The opinion says the actions presented nearly identical claims, including requests for orders compelling conduct by federal judges of the Northern District of California, the Ninth Circuit, the District of Idaho, Idaho state-court judges, and various court personnel. Sivak 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) prevents a prisoner who has had at least three qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding without paying the fee unless the prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found Sivak to be a three-striker and that the complaints in these actions did not show imminent danger.

The court therefore denied Sivak’s motions for leave to proceed without paying filing fees.

Additional grounds discussed by the court

The court stated that, even if Sivak’s filing-fee requests were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under several legal doctrines. It cited the rule barring certain civil-rights damages claims that would undermine an existing conviction or sentence unless that conviction or sentence has first been invalidated; the rule requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings; and the rule that federal courts cannot issue orders directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties.

The court also cited immunity for court clerks performing tasks integral to the judicial process and absolute immunity for judges from civil damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacity. It stated that a federal district judge cannot review another district judge’s filing-fee decision through a request for an order directing that judge to act. The court further stated that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a basis for questioning the assigned judge’s impartiality. The opinion notes that Sivak did not seek the judge’s recusal.

Disposition

The court dismissed the above-captioned actions with prejudice. It directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the actions, and it ordered the Clerk to return without filing any further documents Sivak submits in the closed cases. The court stated that Sivak may appeal a federal judge’s filing-fee decision to the Ninth Circuit as circumstances warrant, but may not seek review of that decision by another judge in the District.