Sivak v. Fletcher ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LACEY SIVAK, Case No. 23-cv-06014-TLT 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, et al., Respondents. 11 12 13 Petitioner, an Idaho state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus 14 seeking to compel certain conduct by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges. ECF 1. Petitioner 15 also simultaneously filed a “request to proceed on a claim of imminent danger and without cost,” 16 but did not identify any imminent danger. ECF 2. 17 That same day, the Clerk of the Court informed petitioner that this action was deficient 18 because he had not submitted an in forma pauperis (IFP) application or paid the filing fee. ECF 3. 19 The Court informed petitioner that he needed to correct the deficiencies within twenty-eight days 20 from the date of the notice to avoid dismissal of this action. Id. The deadline has passed, and 21 petitioner has not submitted an IFP application or paid the fee. 22 The Court therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice. Because this dismissal is 23 without prejudice, petitioner may move to reopen the action. Any such motion must contain either 24 the $405 filing fee or a complete in forma pauperis application. Petitioner should be aware that 25 his petition does not meet the imminent danger standard for the exception to the three-strikes bar 26 on filing IFP. See Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022). 27 The clerk shall terminate any pending motions, enter judgment for respondents, and close 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: February 5, 2024 3 fe _ x 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 13 © 15 16 it Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28