Sivak v. Bennett

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the listed actions. The opinion describes the actions as presenting nearly identical claims. They included petitions asking courts to order certain conduct by federal judges of the Northern District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, as well as Idaho state judges and court personnel. Sivak also sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the handling of his cases.

Requests to Proceed Without Paying Filing Fees

In many of the actions, Sivak asked for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or “IFP.” The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prevents a prisoner who has had at least three qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding IFP unless the prisoner shows that he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the case.

The court stated that Sivak had filed more than 100 cases in the Northern District of California and that a nationwide federal-court search showed hundreds of results under his name. It also stated that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found him to be a “three-striker,” based on three earlier dismissals. The court found that the complaints in the listed actions did not show that Sivak faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed them. It therefore denied his IFP motions.

Other Grounds Discussed by the Court

The court further stated that, even if an IFP request were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by other legal rules. It cited Heck v. Humphrey concerning civil-rights damages claims that would imply an invalid conviction or sentence; Younger v. Harris concerning federal interference with certain ongoing state proceedings; and Demos v. U.S. District Court concerning federal courts’ lack of power to order state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials to perform their duties.

The court also cited Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada concerning immunity for court clerks performing tasks integral to the judicial process, and Moore v. Brewster concerning judicial immunity from damages for actions taken in a judicial capacity. The court said Sivak could appeal a federal judge’s disposition of an IFP application to the Ninth Circuit as circumstances warranted, but could not ask another judge in the same district to review it.

Disposition

The court stated that the listed actions were “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” It also rejected any need for the undersigned judge to recuse herself, explaining that Sivak’s repetitive and frivolous filings did not provide a reason to question her impartiality. The Clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions, close the actions, and return without filing any further documents Sivak submits in those closed cases.