1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LACEY SIVAK, Case Nos. 24-cv-03677-AMO (PR) 24-cv-03678-AMO (PR) Petitioner, 8 24-cv-03680-AMO (PR) v. 24-cv-04380-AMO (PR) 9 24-cv-04381-AMO (PR)

10 ZAHIDA PEREA, 24-cv-04382-AMO (PR) 24-cv-04383-AMO (PR) 11 Respondent. 24-cv-04384-AMO (PR) 24-cv-04385-AMO (PR)

12 24-cv-04386-AMO (PR) 24-cv-04406-AMO (PR) 13 24-cv-04407-AMO (PR) 24-cv-04408-AMO (PR) 14 24-cv-04409-AMO (PR) 15 24-cv-04410-AMO (PR) 24-cv-04654-AMO (PR)

16 24-cv-06261-AMO (PR) 24-cv-06540-AMO (PR) 17 24-cv-06539-AMO (PR) 24-cv-09154-AMO (PR) 18 24-cv-09158-AMO (PR) 19 24-cv-09162-AMO (PR) 24-cv-09168-AMO (PR)

20

21 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE CASES WITH PREJUDICE 22

23

24 Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned 25 actions, representing himself. Sivak presents nearly identical claims in the above-captioned 26 actions, which include petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel certain conduct by a 27 prison staff member named Zahida Perea, who is the paralegal at the prison’s law library, the 1 In each above-captioned action, Sivak has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 (“IFP”). However, he has been disqualified from proceeding IFP under

(g) 3 unless he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint. 4

(g). Sivak is a frequent litigant who has filed more than 100 cases in the 5 Northern District of California.1 A nationwide federal court search on the Public Access To Court 6 Electronic Records or PACER database returns hundreds of results for lawsuits in his name. The 7 Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho have previously found him to be a three-striker. See Ninth 8 Circuit Case No. 23-35190, Dkt. 8 (June 2, 2023) (citing Sivak v. Winmill, No. 1: 02-cv-00353 (D. 9 Idaho Oct. 17, 2002) (dismissed for failure to state claim); Sivak v. Nye, No. 21-35760 (9th Cir. 10 Nov. 8, 2021) (dismissed as frivolous); Sivak v. Duggan, No. 21-35356 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2022) 11 (dismissed as frivolous)). Because Sivak has had at least three cases dismissed that count as 12 “strikes,” pursuant to section 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in the above-captioned actions 13 unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed 14 the petitions in each action. The allegations in the complaints in the above-captioned actions do 15 not show that Sivak was in imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, he may not proceed 16 IFP, and his motions for leave to proceed IFP are DENIED. 17 Moreover, even if an IFP application were granted, Sivak’s lawsuits would be barred under 18 Demos v. U.S. District Court,

, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that federal courts 19 are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state 20 officials in performance of their duties). 21 Also, any motions to disqualify the undersigned judge are DENIED as these are not cases 22 in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned due to the repetitive 23 and frivolous nature of the filings. See United States v. Holland,

(9th Cir. 24 2008) (finding that absent legitimate reasons to recuse himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit 25 in judgment in all cases assigned to that judge).2 26 1 Since May 2024, the undersigned judge has issued numerous dismissal orders pursuant to 27 section 1915(g), pertaining to more than 100 different cases. 1 Accordingly, the above-captioned actions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close these above- 3 || captioned actions. The Clerk shall return, without filing, any further documents Sivak 4 || submits in these closed cases. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 26, 2024 7 HO - g Cnacek idl □ ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

2B

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 95 || 24-cv-04592-JD (PR), 24-cv-04653-JD (PR), 24-cv-06543-JD (PR), 24-cv-06544-JD (PR). On October 15, 2024, the Honorable Judge James Donato dismissed all four cases with prejudice 26 || Upon finding that “[nJone of the cases plausibly allege[d] a claim of any sort, even when read generously for a pro se litigant.” See Case No. 24-cv-04592-JD (PR), Dkt. 7 at 2. In the above- 07 captioned cases, Sivak does not seek recusal, nor is recusal warranted considering the frivolous nature of the cases. He only seeks to “disqualify” the undersigned judge “for bias” because she 1s 28 a defendant in Case No. 24-cv-04592-JD (PR). See Case No. 24-cv-04654-AMO (PR), Dkt. 4 at 1-2.