Doe v. County of Sonoma

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOHN DOE, Case No. 16-cv-05195-JD 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER RE IFP STATUS Re: Dkt. No. 80 9 COUNTY OF SONOMA et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 In Doe’s pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit made a limited referral to the Court to 5 13 || determine whether his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should continue, or whether the appeal is 14 || frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). 3 15 Doe is not entitled to IFP status on appeal. The Section 1983 claims against the California a 16 || state defendants were dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. The claims against the Sonoma 3 17 || County defendants were dismissed because Doe did not allege facts that plausibly stated a claim 18 || under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). See Dkt. Nos. 67, 75. 19 || Doe was given multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, but did not cure these deficiencies. 20 || Consequently, an appeal on these grounds is frivolous, and his IFP status is terminated. 21 The Clerk of the Court is requested to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and the Ninth 22 || Circuit. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: January 27, 2020 25 26 97 JAMES JPONATO- United Ptates District Judge 28