Sivak v. Schroeder

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, filed the many cases listed in the caption while representing himself. The court described the cases as presenting nearly identical claims. They included petitions seeking orders requiring federal judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to take certain actions. The cases concerned how the district court had handled Sivak’s earlier requests seeking an order requiring conduct by Zahida Perea, identified as a paralegal at the Idaho State Correctional Institution Resource Center’s law library.

The court also described Sivak as having an extensive history of filing similar cases. It stated that, since May 2024, the undersigned judge had barred Sivak from proceeding without prepaying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and had dismissed him as a “three-striker” in more than 200 cases in the Northern District of California. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had also previously found him to be a three-striker.

Rulings

The court denied Sivak’s motions for leave to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Section 1915(g) generally bars a prisoner who has had at least three qualifying cases dismissed from proceeding without prepayment unless the prisoner shows that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the case was filed. The court concluded that Sivak could not proceed without prepaying filing fees in these cases.

The court further stated that, even if a request to proceed without prepaying fees were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under its cited rule limiting federal courts’ power to issue orders directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in performing their duties. The court also stated that a party dissatisfied with a federal judge’s decision on an application to proceed without prepaying fees may appeal to the Ninth Circuit as appropriate, but may not seek review by another district judge. It additionally stated that the judges were absolutely immune from civil damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacities.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin held that the cases did not present a basis for recusal despite their repetitive and frivolous nature. The court ordered that all the above-captioned actions be dismissed with prejudice. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the cases, and return without filing any further documents Sivak submitted in those closed cases.