Sivak v. Schroeder

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice multiple actions filed by pro se prisoner Lacey Sivak. The court denied pending applications to proceed in forma pauperis under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), finding no imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also noted that claims involving judges were barred by mandamus limitations and judicial immunity, and directed the Clerk to close the cases.

Holdings

1. Because Sivak had at least three prior cases dismissed as strikes, he could not proceed in forma pauperis unless he showed that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed each action.
2. Sivak's allegations did not show that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions, so the three-strikes exception did not apply.
3. Federal courts lack power to issue a writ of mandamus directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties.
4. A party who disagrees with a federal judge's disposition of an in forma pauperis application must seek review in the Ninth Circuit as appropriate and may not obtain review by another judge in the same district.
5. Judicial officers are absolutely immune from civil damages claims arising from acts taken in their judicial capacities.
6. Recusal was not warranted merely because Sivak had filed repetitive and frivolous cases against the assigned judge; absent legitimate grounds for recusal, a judge has a duty to sit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sivak could proceed in forma pauperis despite his three-striker status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
2. Whether the allegations established that Sivak was under imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the actions.
3. Whether the court could issue mandamus relief directing state courts, state judicial officers, federal judges, or other officials to perform specified duties.
4. Whether judicial officers were absolutely immune from Sivak's civil damages claims based on acts taken in their judicial capacities.
5. Whether the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings required or justified recusal of the assigned judge.

Disposition

dismissed