Sivak v. Schroeder
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:25-cv-00963
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sivak v. Schroeder, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied fee-waiver motions and dismissed the actions with prejudice, citing the three-strikes rule and other barriers.
Lacey Sivak and the six actions he filed; the order also addressed claims or requests involving judges and prison-related matters.
What happened
In Sivak v. Schroeder, Lacey Sivak, who represented himself, filed six actions involving challenges to earlier court rulings, requests directed at judges, and allegations concerning prison staff and housing. Some filings sought orders requiring officials or judges to act, while others were labeled criminal complaints.
The court found that Sivak had at least three prior cases that counted as strikes under the federal filing-fee law. Because his allegations did not show that he faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when he filed these cases, he could not proceed without paying the filing fees. The court also said that some claims against judges faced additional barriers, including limits on orders directing other courts and immunity from damages claims for judicial acts.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied any pending motions to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed all six actions with prejudice. The Clerk was ordered to terminate pending motions and close the cases, and the court said further filings in the closed cases generally would not be considered or would be returned.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Schroeder · No. 3:25-cv-00963
- Martinez-Olguin
- June 13, 2025
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner who represented himself, filed the six listed actions. The court described Sivak as a frequent litigant with an extensive history of filing similar cases.
In some actions, Sivak challenged earlier rulings from the Idaho courts, the District of Idaho, the Northern District of California, or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Some filings sought orders requiring federal appellate judges to take specific actions. Other filings sought relief related to petitions concerning Zahida Perea, identified as the paralegal at the prison law library. In three actions, Sivak filed documents labeled “Criminal Complaints” against judges. In another action, he listed no defendant and included an allegation concerning the movement of a prisoner between housing units.
Filing-fee status
Several actions included requests to proceed without prepaying the filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding “in forma pauperis.” The court stated that, since May 2024, it had disqualified Sivak from that status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and had dismissed him as a “three-striker” in more than 400 cases in the Northern District of California.
Under § 1915(g), a prisoner who has had at least three qualifying cases dismissed may not proceed without prepaying the filing fee unless the complaint shows that the prisoner faced an immediate risk of serious physical injury when the case was filed. The court concluded that the allegations in these actions did not show such a risk. Any pending motions to proceed without prepaying the filing fees were therefore DENIED.
Additional barriers identified by the court
The court stated that, even if a fee-waiver request were granted, some actions against judges would face separate legal barriers. It cited the rule that federal district courts cannot issue orders directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties. It also stated that the judges were absolutely immune from civil damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial capacities.
The court further concluded that recusal was not warranted based on the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. It noted that Sivak had previously named Judge Martinez-Olguin as a respondent in five cases before Judge James Donato, and that Judge Donato had dismissed those cases. The court also referred to its earlier dismissal of similar cases involving Sivak.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE all six above-captioned actions. It ordered the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the actions. The court also stated that Sivak could not continue submitting documents in the closed cases, except for filings specifically permitted by law; further motions not so permitted would not be considered and would be returned to him.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.