Sivak v. Fletcher
- 3:23-cv-06111
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sivak v. Fletcher, the court dismissed the mandamus action without prejudice after Sivak neither paid the fee nor filed an application to proceed without paying.
Lacey Sivak's mandamus action was dismissed without prejudice because he neither paid the filing fee nor submitted the required application to proceed without paying. The respondents received judgment, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Sivak v. Fletcher, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to compel certain conduct by Ninth Circuit judges. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee based on imminent danger, but identified no imminent danger.
The clerk notified Sivak that he needed either to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying. The deadline passed, and Sivak did neither.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice, entered judgment for the respondents, and closed the case. The court said Sivak could move to reopen by paying the $405 fee or submitting a complete application to proceed without paying, but stated that his petition did not meet the imminent-danger standard for an exception to the three-strikes bar.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Fletcher · No. 3:23-cv-06111
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition seeking an order compelling certain conduct by judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sivak also filed a request to proceed without paying the filing fee based on imminent danger, but the court stated that he did not identify any imminent danger.
Filing-fee deficiency
The clerk notified Sivak that the action was deficient because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it. The notice gave him 28 days to correct the deficiency and warned that the action could be dismissed if he did not do so. The deadline passed without Sivak submitting an application or paying the fee.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice. It stated that Sivak could move to reopen the action, but any such motion had to include either the $405 filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying. The court also stated that the petition did not meet the imminent-danger standard for an exception to the three-strikes bar on filing without paying.
The clerk was directed to terminate any pending motions, enter judgment for the respondents, and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.