Lacey Sivak v. Timothy Wilson

Ninth Circuit

Lacey Sivak v. Timothy Wilson

646 F. App'x 523

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 25, 2016·No. 14-35877·Unpublished·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

*524 MEMORANDUM **

Lacey Mark Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to file various actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the application of a vexatious litigant order. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revising a prior pre-filing order to conform to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and in applying the revised order to Sivak’s proposed actions.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*524 MEMORANDUM **

Lacey Mark Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request to file various actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the application of a vexatious litigant order. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revising a prior pre-filing order to conform to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and in applying the revised order to Sivak’s proposed actions.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Lacey Sivak v. Timothy Wilson, 646 F. App'x 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

646 F. App'x 523 (Lacey Sivak v. Timothy Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related