1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 LACEY SIVAK, Case Nos. 25-cv-00727-AMO (PR) Petitioner, 25-cv-00728-AMO (PR) 5 25-cv-00729-AMO (PR) v. 6 25-cv-00730-AMO (PR)

7 ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN,1 25-cv-00735-AMO (PR) Respondent. 25-cv-00736-AMO (PR) 8 25-cv-00739-AMO (PR)

9 25-cv-00742-AMO (PR) 10 25-cv-00743-AMO (PR) 25-cv-00744-AMO (PR) 11 25-cv-00745-AMO (PR)

12 25-cv-00748-AMO (PR) 13 25-cv-00749-AMO (PR) 25-cv-00750-AMO (PR) 14 25-cv-00751-AMO (PR)

15 25-cv-00752-AMO (PR) 16 25-cv-00754-AMO (PR) 25-cv-00956-AMO (PR) 17 25-cv-00958-AMO (PR)

18 25-cv-00959-AMO (PR) 19 25-cv-00960-AMO (PR) 25-cv-00961-AMO (PR) 20 25-cv-00962-AMO (PR)

21 25-cv-00964-AMO (PR) 22 25-cv-00965-AMO (PR) 25-cv-00966-AMO (PR) 23 25-cv-00967-AMO (PR)

24 25-cv-00968-AMO (PR)

25 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE

CASES WITH PREJUDICE 26

27 1 Sivak incorrectly spelled the undersigned judge’s first name and abbreviated her last name as 1 Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned 2 actions, representing himself. Sivak presents nearly identical claims in the above-captioned 3 actions, which include petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel certain conduct by the 4 undersigned judge. Sivak specifically names the undersigned as a respondent in these cases. 5 Sivak does not seek recusal, nor is recusal warranted considering the frivolous nature of the cases. 6 Instead, Sivak seeks relief regarding how this Court handled his petitions for a writ of mandamus 7 seeking to compel certain conduct by a prison staff member named Zahida Perea, who is the 8 paralegal at the prison’s law library, the Idaho State Correctional Institution Resource Center. The 9 Court notes that Sivak has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous cases. 10 In many of the above-captioned actions, Sivak has requested leave to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (“IFP”). However, since May 2024, the undersigned has disqualified Sivak from 12 proceeding IFP under

(g) and issued numerous orders dismissing him as a three- 13 striker pursuant to section 1915(g) in more than 200 different cases in the Northern District of 14 California. See

(g). A nationwide federal court search on the Public Access To 15 Court Electronic Records or PACER database returns hundreds of results for lawsuits in his name. 16 The Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho have also previously found him to be a three-striker. 17 See Ninth Circuit Case No. 23-35190, Dkt. 8 (June 2, 2023) (citing Sivak v. Winmill, No. 1: 02-cv- 18 00353 (D. Idaho Oct. 17, 2002) (dismissed for failure to state claim); Sivak v. Nye, No. 21-35760 19 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2021) (dismissed as frivolous); Sivak v. Duggan, No. 21-35356 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 20 2022) (dismissed as frivolous)). Because Sivak has had at least three cases dismissed that count as 21 “strikes,” pursuant to section 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in the above-captioned actions 22 unless he demonstrates that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time 23 he filed the petitions in each action. See

(g). The allegations in the above- 24 captioned actions do not show that Sivak was in imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, 25 he may not proceed IFP, and his motions for leave to proceed IFP are DENIED. 26 Moreover, even if an IFP application were granted, his lawsuits would be barred under 27 Demos v. U.S. District Court,

, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that federal courts 1 officials in performance of their duties). To the extent Sivak disagrees with the undersigned 2 || judge’s disposition of his applications to proceed IFP, he may appeal to the Ninth Circuit as 3 circumstances warrant. He may not seek review by another judge in the District. See Allied 4 Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,

(1980); see also Mullis, 828 F.2d at 1392-93 5 (finding that “horizontal appeal” from one district court to another improper and “district court 6 || lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district court”). In addition, the 7 undersigned judge is absolutely immune from civil claims for damages alleged in connection with 8 actions taken in her judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster,

(9th Cir. 1996). 9 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned Judge’s impartiality might be 10 || reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. See United States v. 11 Holland,

(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that absent legitimate reasons to recuse «= 12 || himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases assigned to that judge).”

13 Accordingly, the above-captioned actions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

v 14 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close these above-

15 captioned actions. The Clerk shall return, without filing, any further documents Sivak a 16 submits in these closed cases.

= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 || Dated: February 5, 2025 19 coh ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 yp 25 > Sivak has previously named the undersigned as a respondent in five cases. See Case Nos. 24-cv- 04592-JD (PR), 24-cv-04653-JD (PR), 24-cv-06543-JD (PR), 24-cv-06544-JD (PR), 25-cv- 26 00562-JD (PR). On October 15, 2024, the Honorable Judge James Donato dismissed four cases with prejudice upon finding that “[nJone of the cases plausibly allege[d] a claim of any sort, even 07 when read generously for a pro se litigant.” See Case No. 24-cv-04592-JD (PR), Dkt. 7 at 2. The fifth case is still pending as it was only recently reassigned to Judge Donato. See Case No. 25-cv- 28 00562-JD (PR), Dkt. 3. Again, in the above-captioned cases, Sivak does not seek recusal, which is not warranted due to the frivolous nature of the cases.