Sivak v. Graber

Background

Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed three related actions while representing himself. The cases named mostly the same defendants, including federal judges. Sivak filed what he called “Criminal Complaints” and sought relief concerning the handling of his cases by federal courts.

In two cases, Sivak asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court explained that, since May 2024, it had treated Sivak as barred from proceeding without that payment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which applies after a prisoner has accumulated three qualifying dismissals. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho had previously found Sivak to be subject to that rule.

Reasoning

The court held that Sivak could proceed without paying the filing fee only if he showed that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed each case. It found that the allegations did not show such a danger. The court therefore denied every pending request to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court also stated that, even if a fee-waiver request were granted, some of Sivak’s lawsuits against judges would be barred. It said a federal district court cannot use a court order to direct state courts or state judicial officers in the performance of their duties, and that a federal judge’s decision about a fee-waiver request could be challenged in the federal appeals court rather than by asking another district judge to review it. The court further stated that judges are protected from civil damages claims based on actions taken in their judicial roles.

The court rejected Sivak’s request to disqualify the judge assigned to these cases. It said the repetitive and allegedly frivolous nature of Sivak’s filings did not provide a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Sivak’s motion to disqualify her and dismissed the three above-captioned actions with prejudice. The order directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. It also stated that Sivak could not continue filing documents in the closed cases; further motions, except those specifically permitted by law in closed cases, would not be considered and would be returned. The order specifically terminated Docket Nos. 2 and 3 in Case No. 25-cv-04486-AMO (PR) and Docket No. 2 in Case No. 25-cv-06373-AMO (PR).