Sivak v. Fletcher
- 3:23-cv-06013
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sivak v. Fletcher, the court dismissed Lacey Sivak’s mandamus action without prejudice after she neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an IFP application.
Lacey Sivak’s mandamus action was dismissed without prejudice because she did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. The order allows her to move to reopen by providing one of those items.
What happened
In Sivak v. Fletcher, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing herself, filed a petition seeking to compel conduct by Ninth Circuit judges. She also asked to proceed without paying costs based on alleged imminent danger.
The Clerk told Sivak that the case was deficient because she had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying it. She did not correct the problem within the required 28 days.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing Sivak to seek reopening by submitting the $405 filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying it. The court also stated that the petition did not meet the imminent-danger standard for an exception to the three-strikes filing bar.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Fletcher · No. 3:23-cv-06013
- Feb. 5, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a court order requiring certain conduct by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges. She also filed a request to proceed without costs based on an alleged imminent danger, stating that she was illegally held and that crimes against her were imminent.
Filing Deficiency
The Clerk informed Sivak that the action was deficient because she had not submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or paid the filing fee. The court gave her 28 days from the notice to correct the deficiency and avoid dismissal. That deadline passed without Sivak submitting either document.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice. The order states 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 the petition did not meet the imminent-danger standard for an exception to the three-strikes bar on filing without paying the fee.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.