Sivak v. Zahida
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-09159
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Perea, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied fee-waiver requests and dismissed the related cases with prejudice.
Lacey Sivak’s related petitions against Zahida Perea were dismissed with prejudice; Sivak’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees and any motions to disqualify the judge were denied.
What happened
Lacey Sivak, who represented himself, filed several nearly identical cases seeking orders requiring prison law-library paralegal Zahida Perea to take certain actions. Sivak asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that Sivak had at least three prior qualifying dismissals, so he could not proceed without paying unless he showed that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed. The court found no such danger. It also said federal courts could not order state officials to perform their duties through these petitions.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Sivak’s requests to proceed without paying, denied any motions to disqualify the judge, and dismissed the cases with prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close the cases and return unauthorized future filings.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Zahida · No. 3:24-cv-09159
- Martinez-Olguin
- June 13, 2025
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed the related cases listed in the caption against Zahida Perea. The opinion describes Perea as a paralegal at the prison’s law library, the Idaho State Correctional Institution Resource Center. Sivak brought nearly identical petitions seeking a writ of mandamus—a court order requiring an official to take specified action.
In each case, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court stated that he had filed more than 400 cases in the Northern District of California and that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously determined that he was subject to the three-dismissal limit in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under that provision, a litigant with at least three qualifying dismissals may not proceed without paying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the litigant was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the case was filed.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the allegations in these cases did not show that Sivak faced imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the petitions. It therefore denied his requests to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court also stated that, even if the fee-waiver requests had been granted, the lawsuits would be barred under Demos v. U.S. District Court. As the court explained, federal courts lack authority to issue mandamus directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in carrying out their duties.
The order further states that any motions seeking to disqualify the judge were denied because the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.
Disposition
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that the related actions be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. The court also ordered that Sivak could not continue submitting documents in the closed cases; unauthorized future motions would not be considered and would be returned to him. The court did not reach the underlying merits of Sivak’s requests concerning Perea.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.