Sivak v. Schroeder

Background

Lacey Sivak, identified by the court as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the numerous listed actions while representing himself. The actions presented nearly identical claims, including 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-court judges and various court personnel. The opinion states that Sivak sought relief concerning his underlying conviction or the way his cases had been handled.

Requests to proceed without paying filing fees

In many of the actions, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) barred that status because Sivak had at least three prior cases dismissed as qualifying “strikes.” Under that statute, a prisoner with three such dismissals may proceed without paying the fee only if the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the action was filed.

The court relied on prior findings by the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho that Sivak was a three-striker. It concluded that the complaints in the listed actions did not show imminent danger at the time they were filed. The court therefore DENIED Sivak’s motions for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds discussed by the court

The court stated that, even if an application to proceed without paying the fee were granted, the lawsuits would be barred by one or more other legal principles. Those included the rule generally preventing civil-rights damages claims from proceeding when success would undermine an existing conviction or sentence, abstention from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings, the lack of federal power to order state courts or state judicial officers to act through a mandamus order, and immunity for court clerks and judges for certain judicial acts. The court also stated that Sivak could appeal a federal judge’s decision about proceeding without paying fees to the Ninth Circuit when appropriate, but could not ask another judge in the same district to review that decision.

The opinion further states that judges are protected from damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacity. It concludes that recusal was not warranted based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. The opinion notes that Sivak had previously named Judge Martinez-Olguin as a defendant in four cases, which Judge James Donato had dismissed with prejudice on October 15, 2024; the court states that Sivak did not seek recusal in these actions.

Ruling and case status

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that all the listed actions be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court was ordered to terminate all pending motions and close the actions. The Clerk was also directed to return, without filing, any further documents Sivak submits in those closed cases. Because the court disposed of the matters on filing-fee and other threshold grounds rather than deciding the underlying claims, this is a procedural order.