Sivak v. Schroeder

Background

Lacey Sivak, described as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions while representing himself. The order lists numerous case numbers, beginning with 23-cv-06013-AMO (PR), and names William A. Fletcher and others as defendants. The cases present nearly identical claims, including petitions seeking an order requiring federal judges of the Northern District of California, judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, judges of the District of Idaho, Idaho state-court judges, and various court personnel to take specified actions. The order says Sivak seeks relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his cases.

Requests to Proceed Without Filing Fees

In many of the actions, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally prevents a prisoner who has had at least three qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding without paying the fee unless the prisoner shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court stated that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found Sivak to be a three-strikes litigant. It also stated that the complaints in the listed actions did not show that Sivak faced imminent danger when he filed them. The court therefore denied his motions for permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Additional Grounds for Dismissal

The court stated that, even if a request to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred for additional reasons. It cited:

- Heck v. Humphrey, concerning civil-rights damages claims that would undermine a conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence had first been invalidated; - Younger v. Harris, concerning federal interference with certain ongoing state criminal proceedings; - Demos v. U.S. District Court, holding that federal courts cannot issue mandamus orders directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in performing their duties; and - Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, concerning limits on damages claims against court clerks for tasks integral to the judicial process.

The court also stated that judges are absolutely immune from civil damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacities. It said that Sivak could appeal a federal judge’s decision about permission to proceed without paying fees to the Ninth Circuit as circumstances warrant, but could not ask another judge in the same district to review that decision.

Disposition

The order states: “Accordingly, the above-captioned actions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” The court directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the listed actions. It further ordered the Clerk to return, without filing, any additional documents Sivak submits in those closed cases. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also addressed Sivak’s prior naming of her as a defendant and concluded that recusal was not warranted because of the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings.