From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sivak v. Wilson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 25, 2016
646 F. App'x 523 (9th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 14-35877

03-25-2016

LACEY MARK SIVAK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY D. WILSON; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:93-cv-00081-EJL MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

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

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.


Summaries of

Sivak v. Wilson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 25, 2016
646 F. App'x 523 (9th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Sivak v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:LACEY MARK SIVAK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY D. WILSON; et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 25, 2016

Citations

646 F. App'x 523 (9th Cir. 2016)

Citing Cases

Sivak v. Winmill

See, e.g., Sivak v. Winmill, No. 1:23-cv-00014-AKB, 2023 WL 4600516, at *2 (D. Idaho July 18, 2023); Sivak…

Sivak v. Winmill

As Plaintiff is well aware, “a federal criminal proceeding can be commenced only by the United States-not by…