SIVAK v. CHRISTENSEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-23No. No. 20-35243

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Sivak's action for failure to comply with its court order was affirmed.

Lacey Mark Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his federal claims action. The district court had warned Sivak that he must either pay the required filing fee or submit an application for in forma pauperis status (permission to proceed without paying court costs) or face dismissal of his case. When Sivak failed to comply with this order, the district court dismissed his action as directed.

On appeal, Sivak argued various points, but the appellate court declined to consider new arguments raised for the first time during the appeal process. The court determined that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing the case after providing fair warning about the consequences of noncompliance.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether dismissal for failure to pay filing fees or apply for in forma pauperis status constitutes an abuse of discretion
Standards for reviewing dismissals of pro se litigant actions for noncompliance with court orders
Appellate consideration of arguments raised for the first time on appeal

Procedural posture

A pro se state prisoner appealed from a district court's dismissal of his federal civil rights action for failure to comply with a court order regarding payment of filing fees or in forma pauperis status.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Idaho state prisoner Lacey Mark Sivak appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district courts dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sivaks action after warning him that failure to pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status would result in dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and requiring “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” in order to overturn such a dismissal (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (an action may proceed without the payment of filing fees only upon granting of in forma pauperis status).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.