Sivak v. Olguin

Background

Lacey Sivak, described in the order as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the listed actions while representing himself. The cases presented nearly identical claims, including petitions asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus—a court order requiring specified conduct. The requested conduct concerned Zahida Perea, identified as the paralegal at the prison’s law-library resource center. Sivak named the judge handling these cases, Araceli Martinez-Olguin, as a respondent. The order states that he did not seek the judge’s recusal, or removal from the cases.

Filing-fee requests

In many of the cases, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court explained that, since May 2024, it had disqualified Sivak from proceeding under the federal statute governing fee waivers for prisoners with three or more qualifying dismissals. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found him to be a “three-striker.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner with at least three qualifying dismissals may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when the case was filed.

The court found that Sivak’s allegations did not show imminent danger at the relevant time. It therefore DENIED his motions for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Other grounds discussed by the court

The court stated that, even if a fee-waiver request were granted, the lawsuits would be barred under the cited precedent concerning attempts to obtain a writ of mandamus against another federal district judge. The court said that Sivak could appeal the handling of his fee-waiver applications to the Ninth Circuit, but could not seek review by another judge within the Northern District of California. The court also stated that a judge has absolute immunity from civil damages claims based on actions taken in a judicial capacity.

The order further concluded that the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reason to question the judge’s impartiality. It stated that recusal was not warranted.

Disposition

The court ordered that all of the listed actions be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the actions. It also directed the clerk to return, without filing, any further documents Sivak submitted in those closed cases.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court denied the fee-waiver requests and dismissed the cases on filing-fee, mandamus, immunity, and recusal grounds rather than deciding the underlying requested relief on its merits.