Sivak v. Fletcher
- 3:23-cv-06014
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sivak v. Fletcher, the court dismissed Lacey Sivak’s mandamus action without prejudice after he neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed without paying.
Lacey Sivak’s action was dismissed without prejudice; the respondents received judgment, and Sivak may seek to reopen the action under the conditions stated in the order.
What happened
In Sivak v. Fletcher, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, sought an order requiring certain Ninth Circuit judges to take specified actions. He also asked to proceed without paying court costs, but did not identify an imminent danger.
The clerk told Sivak that he needed either to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying within 28 days. He did neither. The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning he may ask to reopen it by paying the fee or submitting a complete application.
The court also said the petition did not meet the imminent-danger standard for an exception to the three-strikes filing restriction, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, entered judgment for the respondents, and closed the case. Judge: the court.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Fletcher · No. 3:23-cv-06014
- Feb. 5, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition seeking mandamus relief—an order compelling specified conduct—by certain Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges. He also filed a request to proceed without paying court costs, invoking an imminent-danger claim, but he did not identify any imminent danger.
The clerk notified Sivak that the action was deficient because he had not submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or paid the fee. The notice gave him 28 days to correct the deficiency and warned that the action could be dismissed. The deadline passed without Sivak submitting either item.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice. The order stated that Sivak may move to reopen the action, but such a motion must include either the $405 filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying it.
The court also stated that Sivak’s petition did not satisfy the imminent-danger standard for an exception to the three-strikes restriction on filing without paying a fee. The clerk was directed to terminate any pending motions, enter judgment for the respondents, and close the case. The order did not reach the substance of Sivak’s request for an order concerning the Ninth Circuit judges. Judge: the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.