Lacey Sivak v. Judge Graber, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-04486
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LACEY SIVAK, Case Nos. 25-cv-04486-AMO (PR) Plaintiff, 25-cv-06373-AMO (PR) 8 25-cv-06374-AMO (PR) 9 v. ORDER DISMISSING MULTIPLE 10 JUDGE GRABER, et al., CASES WITH PREJUDICE; AND TERMINATING ALL PENDING 11 Defendants. MOTIONS

12 Lacey Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner and frequent litigant, filed the above-captioned 13 actions, representing himself. Sivak presents claims against mostly the same defendants in these 14 above-captioned actions, in which he filed “Criminal Complaints” against federal judges. He 15 seeks relief regarding how his cases were handled by the federal courts. The Court notes that 16 Sivak has an extensive history of filing similar cases. 17 In two of the above-captioned actions, Sivak has requested leave to proceed in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”). See Case No. 25-cv-04486-AMO (PR), Dkt. 2; Case No. 25-cv-06373-AMO 19 (PR), Dkt. 2. However, since May 2024, the undersigned has disqualified Sivak from proceeding 20 IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and issued numerous orders dismissing him as a three-striker 21 pursuant to section 1915(g) in more than 400 different cases in the Northern District of California. 22 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A nationwide federal court search on the Public Access To Court 23 Electronic Records or PACER database returns hundreds of results for lawsuits in his name. The 24 Ninth Circuit and the District of Idaho have also previously found him to be a three-striker. See 25 Ninth Circuit Case No. 23-35190, Dkt. 8 (June 2, 2023) (citing Sivak v. Winmill, No. 1: 02-cv- 26 00353 (D. Idaho Oct. 17, 2002) (dismissed for failure to state claim); Sivak v. Nye, No. 21-35760 27 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2021) (dismissed as frivolous); Sivak v. Duggan, No. 21-35356 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 1 “strikes,” pursuant to section 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any of the above-captioned 2 actions unless he demonstrates that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the 3 time he filed the petitions in each action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The allegations in the above- 4 captioned actions do not show that Sivak was in imminent danger at the time of filing. Therefore, 5 he may not proceed IFP, and any pending motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. 6 Moreover, even if an IFP application were granted, some of his lawsuits against judges 7 would be barred under Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) 8 (finding that federal courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state 9 judicial officers, or other state officials in performance of their duties). To the extent Sivak 10 disagrees with a federal judge’s disposition of his applications to proceed IFP, he may appeal to 11 the Ninth Circuit as circumstances warrant. He may not seek review by another judge in the 12 District. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); see also Mullis, 828 13 F.2d at 1392-93 (finding that “horizontal appeal” from one district court to another improper and 14 “district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district court”). In addition, 15 these judges are absolutely immune from civil claims for damages alleged in connection with 16 actions taken in their judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 17 1996). 18 Furthermore, these are not cases in which the undersigned judge’s impartiality might be 19 reasonably questioned due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of the filings. See United States v. 20 Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that absent legitimate reasons to recuse 21 himself or herself, a judge has a duty to sit in judgment in all cases assigned to that judge).1 22 1 Sivak previously named the undersigned as a respondent in five cases before the Honorable 23 Judge James Donato. 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-00562-JD (PR). On October 15, 2024, Judge Donato 24 dismissed four cases with prejudice upon finding that “[n]one 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 25 (PR), Dkt. 7 at 2. On May 13, 2025, Judge Donato dismissed the fifth case upon finding that “Judge Martínez-Olguín is immune from civil claims for damages alleged in connection with 26 actions taken in her judicial capacity.” See Case No. 25-cv-00562-JD (PR), Dkt. 4 at 1 (citing Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996)). On February 5, 2025, the undersigned 27 dismissed twenty-eight similar cases filed by Sivak upon determining not only that the 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. Further, Sivak may not continue submitting documents in these closed cases. 4 || Any further motions submitted by Sivak in these closed cases, other than those specifically 5 permitted by law in closed cases, will not be considered by the Court and will be returned to 6 || Sivak. 7 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 3 in Case No. 25-cv-04486-AMO (PR) and 8 Docket No. 2 in Case No. 25-cv-06373-AMO (PR). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: December 1, 2025 11 HO - 2 ( Mracel Mids ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 13 United States District Judge © 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || 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. Here, in 07 one of the above-captioned cases, Sivak has filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned. See Case No. 25-cv-04486-AMO (PR), Dkt. 3. However, recusal is not warranted considering Sivak’s 2g || history of filing frivolous actions against the undersigned as well as the frivolous nature of the present cases, and thus his motion to disqualify the undersigned is DENIED.