Sivak v. Forrest
- 3:23-cv-06251
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sivak v. Forrest, the court dismissed Lacey Sivak’s mandamus action without prejudice for not paying the filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without payment.
Lacey Sivak’s mandamus action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed without paying it; the respondents received judgment in the case.
What happened
In Sivak v. Forrest, Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition seeking to require certain Ninth Circuit judges to take specified actions.
Sivak did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. The court gave him 28 days to correct those problems, but he did neither. He also did not identify an imminent danger supporting an exception to the rule limiting repeated applications to proceed without paying fees.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning Sivak may ask to reopen it. Any such request must include the $405 filing fee or a complete application to proceed without paying it. The court also terminated pending motions, entered judgment for the respondents, and closed the case. The supplied opinion does not identify the judge by name.
The detailed version
- Sivak v. Forrest · No. 3:23-cv-06251
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Lacey Sivak, identified in the opinion as an Idaho state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a court order sought to require an official or court to take a particular action. Sivak sought to compel certain Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges to engage in specified conduct. He also filed a request to proceed without paying the filing fee based on crime-victim rights and imminent danger, but he did not identify any imminent danger.
Filing Deficiency
The clerk notified Sivak that the case 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 or face dismissal. The deadline passed without Sivak paying the fee or submitting the application.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice. The court 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 the fee. 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 fees. The clerk was directed to terminate 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.