Doe v. County of Sonoma

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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.

12 In Doe’s pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit made a limited referral to the Court to 13 || determine whether his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status should continue, or whether the appeal is || 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 17 || County defendants were dismissed because Doe did not allege facts that plausibly stated a claim || 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 || Circuit.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 Dated: January 27, 2020 97 JAMES JPONATO- United Ptates District Judge