Sivak v. Martinez-Olguin

N.D. California

Sivak v. Martinez-Olguin

DecidedOctober 15, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-06544

StatusUnknown

This text of Sivak v. Martinez-Olguin (Sivak v. Martinez-Olguin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sivak v. Martinez-Olguin, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LACEY SIVAK, Case No. 24-cv-04592-JD 24-cv-04653-JD Plaintiff, 8 24-cv-06543-JD v. 24-cv-06544-JD 9 10 J eU t aD l.G , E ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN, ORDER RE DISMISSAL 11 Defendants.

13 Pro se plaintiff Sivak is incarcerated in Idaho and is a frequent litigant in this District. 14 Scores of his cases were assigned to the Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín as presiding district judge. 15 After Judge Martínez-Olguín issued decisions adverse to Sivak, he filed four lawsuits against her. 16 Judge Martínez-Olguín recused herself and the cases were randomly reassigned to this Court. 17 The four cases are dismissed. None of the cases plausibly alleges a claim of any sort, even 18 when read generously for a pro se litigant. To the extent Sivak disagrees with Judge Martínez- 19 Olguín’s disposition of his applications to proceed in forma pauperis, he may appeal to the Ninth 20 Circuit as circumstances warrant. He may not seek review by another judge in the District. See 21 Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); see also Mullis v. United States 22 Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1987) (“horizontal appeal” from one district court to 23 another improper and “district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district 24 court”). In addition, Judge Martínez-Olguín is absolutely immune from civil claims for damages 25 alleged in connection with actions taken in her judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 26 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996). 27 1 The dismissals are with prejudice. No facts can overcome these barriers. The Clerk is 2 || requested to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. No further filings by Sivak will be 3 accepted in these cases. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 15, 2024 6 JAMES D@NATO 7 United Stftes District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LACEY SIVAK, Case No. 24-cv-04592-JD 24-cv-04653-JD Plaintiff, 8 24-cv-06543-JD v. 24-cv-06544-JD 9 10 J eU t aD l.G , E ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN, ORDER RE DISMISSAL 11 Defendants.

13 Pro se plaintiff Sivak is incarcerated in Idaho and is a frequent litigant in this District. 14 Scores of his cases were assigned to the Hon. Araceli Martínez-Olguín as presiding district judge. 15 After Judge Martínez-Olguín issued decisions adverse to Sivak, he filed four lawsuits against her. 16 Judge Martínez-Olguín recused herself and the cases were randomly reassigned to this Court. 17 The four cases are dismissed. None of the cases plausibly alleges a claim of any sort, even 18 when read generously for a pro se litigant. To the extent Sivak disagrees with Judge Martínez- 19 Olguín’s disposition of his applications to proceed in forma pauperis, he may appeal to the Ninth 20 Circuit as circumstances warrant. He may not seek review by another judge in the District. See 21 Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); see also Mullis v. United States 22 Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1987) (“horizontal appeal” from one district court to 23 another improper and “district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district 24 court”). In addition, Judge Martínez-Olguín is absolutely immune from civil claims for damages 25 alleged in connection with actions taken in her judicial capacity. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 26 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996). 27 1 The dismissals are with prejudice. No facts can overcome these barriers. The Clerk is 2 || requested to terminate all pending motions and close the cases. No further filings by Sivak will be 3 accepted in these cases. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: October 15, 2024 6 JAMES D@NATO 7 United Stftes District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sivak v. Martinez-Olguin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sivak-v-martinez-olguin-cand-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack