Sivak v. Olguin
3:25-cv-00737
| N.D. Cal. | Jun 13, 2025Background
- Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent pro se litigant, filed dozens of nearly identical cases in the Northern District of California, seeking writs of mandamus against prison staff and the presiding judge.
- Sivak is subject to the "three strikes" rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) due to previous lawsuits dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, barring him from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) unless he demonstrates imminent danger of serious physical injury.
- The court has repeatedly found Sivak’s filings do not allege imminent danger at the time of filing, thus disqualifying him from IFP status in these actions.
- Sivak also filed similar actions against the presiding judge, seeking to compel certain judicial conduct, which the court found to be improper and lacking in legal basis.
- The court's order is a consolidated dismissal with prejudice of all the listed actions and bars Sivak from further filings in these closed cases.
- The judge also reaffirmed judicial immunity and declined to recuse herself, noting the frivolous nature of the suits and the absence of legitimate grounds for recusal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP Status Post-Three Strikes | Sivak should be allowed IFP despite strikes | Sivak is barred under § 1915(g) unless in imminent danger | Court denied IFP; no imminent danger alleged |
| Mandamus Relief Against State Officials | Federal court should compel prison/paralegal | Federal courts lack power to issue such writs to state | Court dismissed claims as improper |
| Mandamus Relief Against Federal Judge | Court/judge should be compelled to certain action | Judges are immune from such suit; mandamus not allowed | Court dismissed under judicial immunity |
| Recusal of Presiding Judge | Impartiality could be questioned due to dismissals | No legitimate reason for recusal; duty to sit in cases | Court refused recusal; duty to preside remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal courts lack power to issue mandamus to direct state courts or officials)
- Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33 (1980) (no horizontal appeals between district judges; mandamus cannot be used to seek review by another judge)
- Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1996) (federal judges are absolutely immune from civil damages for actions taken in their judicial capacity)
- United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) (recusal only appropriate on legitimate grounds; judges have a duty to preside over assigned cases)