1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LACEY SIVAK, Case No. 25-cv-00963-AMO (PR) Plaintiff, 25-cv-01197-AMO (PR) 9 25-cv-01460-AMO (PR) v. 10 25-cv-01490-AMO (PR)

11 MARY M. SCHROEDER, et al., 25-cv-04487-AMO (PR) Defendants. 25-cv-04531-AMO (PR) 12 ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 13 CASES WITH PREJUDICE

14

15 Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned 16 actions, representing himself. In some of the above-captioned actions, Sivak challenges previous 17 rulings in his cases before the Idaho Court, the District of Idaho, this District, or the Ninth Circuit. 18 For example, Sivak filed petitions for writ of mandamus seeking to compel certain conduct by 19 federal judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Case Nos. 25-cv- 20 00963-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1; 25-cv-04487-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1. Sivak seeks relief related to his 21 petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel certain conduct by a prison staff member 22 named Zahida Perea, who is the paralegal at the prison’s law library, the Idaho State Correctional 23 Institution Resource Center. See id. In other cases, such as Case Nos. 25-cv-01197-AMO (PR), 24 25-cv-01460-AMO (PR), and 25-cv-04531-AMO (PR), Sivak filed a “Criminal Complaints” 25 against certain judges in the Idaho Court, the District of Idaho, this District, and the Ninth Circuit. 26 See Case Nos. 25-cv-01197-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1, 25-cv-01460-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1, and 25-cv- 27 04531-AMO (PR), Dkt. 1. Lastly, in Case No. 25-cv-01490-AMO (PR), Sivak listed no defendant 1 1331,” which “is based on a known homosexual prisoner moved off the housing unit and to 2 another unit where evening crew kitchen workers lived.” See Case No. 25-cv-01490-AMO (PR), 3 Dkt. 1 at 11-12. The Court notes that Sivak has an extensive history of filing similar frivolous 4 cases. 5 In many of the above-captioned actions, Sivak has requested leave to proceed in forma 6 pauperis (“IFP”). However, since May 2024, the undersigned has disqualified Sivak from 7 proceeding IFP under

(g) and issued numerous orders dismissing him as a three- 8 striker pursuant to section 1915(g) in more than 400 different cases in the Northern District of 9 California. See

(g). A nationwide federal court search on the Public Access To 10 Court Electronic Records or PACER database returns hundreds of results for lawsuits in his name. 11 The Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho have also previously found him to be a three-striker. 12 See Ninth Circuit Case No. 23-35190, Dkt. 8 (June 2, 2023) (citing Sivak v. Winmill, No. 1: 02-cv- 13 00353 (D. Idaho Oct. 17, 2002) (dismissed for failure to state claim); Sivak v. Nye, No. 21-35760 14 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2021) (dismissed as frivolous); Sivak v. Duggan, No. 21-35356 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 15 2022) (dismissed as frivolous)). Because Sivak has had at least three cases dismissed that count as 16 “strikes,” pursuant to section 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any of the above-captioned 17 actions unless he demonstrates that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the 18 time he filed the petitions in each action. See

(g). The allegations in the above- 19 captioned actions do not show that Sivak was in imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, 20 he may not proceed IFP, and any pending motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. 21 Moreover, even if an IFP application were granted, some of his lawsuits against judges 22 would be barred under Demos v. U.S. District Court,

, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) 23 (finding that federal courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state 24 judicial officers, or other state officials in performance of their duties). To the extent Sivak 25 disagrees with a federal judge’s disposition of his applications to proceed IFP, he may appeal to 26 the Ninth Circuit as circumstances warrant. He may not seek review by another judge in the 27 District. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,

(1980); see also Mullis, 828 1 “district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district court”). In addition, 2 || these judges are absolutely immune from civil claims for damages alleged in connection with 3 actions taken in their judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster,

, 1243 (9th Cir. 4 1996). 5 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned Judge’s impartiality might be 6 || reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. See United States v. 7 Holland,

(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that absent legitimate reasons to recuse 8 || himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases assigned to that judge).! 9 Accordingly, the above-captioned actions are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 10 The Clerk of the Court shall TERMINATE all pending motions and close these above- 11 captioned actions. Further, Sivak may not continue submitting documents in these closed cases. 12 || Any further motions submitted by Sivak in these closed cases, other than those specifically

13 permitted by law in closed cases, will not be considered by the Court and will be returned to

14 |} Sivak.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: June 13, 2025 tf / 7 { Macel Wed 18 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 19 20 21 ' Sivak previously named the undersigned as a respondent in five cases before the Honorable Judge James Donato. See Case Nos. 24-cv-04592-JD (PR), 24-cv-04653-JD (PR), 24-cv-06543- 2 JD (PR), 24-cv-06544-JD (PR), 25-cv-00562-JD (PR). On October 15, 2024, Judge Donato dismissed four cases with prejudice upon finding that “[n]Jone of the cases plausibly allege[d] a 3 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. On May 13, 2025, Judge Donato dismissed the fifth case upon finding that 24 || “Judge Martinez-Olguin is immune from civil claims for damages alleged in connection with actions taken in her judicial capacity.” See Case No. 25-cv-00562-JD (PR), Dkt. 4 at 1 (citing 25 Moore v. Brewster,

, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996)). On February 5, 2025, the undersigned dismissed twenty-eight similar cases filed by Sivak upon determining not only that the 26 || undersigned is immune but also that he “has had at least three cases dismissed that count as “strikes,” pursuant to [28 U.S.C. §] 1915(g), [and] he may not proceed IFP in the [those] actions 97 || unless he demonstrates that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he filed the petitions in each action. See Case No. 25-cv-00727-AMO (PR), Dkt. 2 at 2. In the 28 above-captioned cases, Sivak does not seek recusal, nor is recusal warranted considering the frivolous nature of the cases.