Sivak v. Araceli Martínez-Olguín
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:25-cv-00967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lacey Sivak v. Martínez-Olguín, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied reconsideration and reaffirmed dismissal under the three-strikes rule.
Lacey Sivak’s closed action remained dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order also restricts further motions by Sivak in that closed case unless specifically permitted by law.
What happened
Lacey Sivak v. Araceli Martínez-Olguín involved Sivak’s request to reopen this closed case. Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, argued that he should be allowed to proceed without paying filing fees because he faced imminent danger.
The court treated Sivak’s filing as a request for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) because it was filed too late to be treated as a motion to change the judgment. The court found no basis to reconsider its earlier dismissal under the federal three-strikes rule, which generally prevents a prisoner with at least three qualifying dismissals from proceeding without paying unless the complaint shows imminent danger of serious physical injury when filed.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the dismissal. The court also terminated the pending motion and stated that it would not consider further motions in the closed case unless the law specifically permits them.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Araceli Martínez-Olguín · No. 3:25-cv-00967
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
This was a closed action filed by Lacey Sivak, whom the opinion describes as an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant representing himself. Sivak filed a document titled “Petition to Proceed Without Cost Based on Imminent Danger.” The court construed that filing as a motion for reconsideration of its earlier dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Section 1915(g), commonly called the prisoner “three-strikes” rule, generally bars a prisoner who has had at least three cases dismissed on qualifying grounds from proceeding without paying the filing fee. An exception applies if the prisoner shows that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint.
Motion standard
Because the judgment was final and Sivak’s filing was not made within the period required for a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the court treated it as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) allows relief for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court explained that the catchall provision requires extraordinary circumstances and that dissatisfaction with the court’s ruling or a belief that the ruling was wrong is not enough.
Court’s analysis
The court found nothing in Sivak’s allegations that justified reconsideration. The court understood Sivak to be challenging the earlier dismissal by asserting that he qualified for the imminent-danger exception.
The court held that imminent danger under section 1915(g) must be assessed when the complaint is filed. Conditions existing before or after that time do not establish the required exception. The court also relied on its earlier determination that Sivak had at least three qualifying dismissals and had not shown imminent danger at the time of filing. The opinion states that the same issue had previously been rejected in similar actions.
Disposition
The court reaffirmed its dismissal of the action under section 1915(g) and denied Sivak’s motion for reconsideration. The order also terminated Docket No. 5. Finally, the court stated that Sivak may not continue filing documents in the closed case and that further motions not specifically permitted by law would not be considered and would be stricken from the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.