Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05195/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05195-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05195-JD 

ORDER RE IFP STATUS

Re: Dkt. No. 80

In Doe’s pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit made a limited referral to the Court to 

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). 

Doe is not entitled to IFP status on appeal. The Section 1983 claims against the California 

state defendants were dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. The claims against the Sonoma 

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. 

Doe was given multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, but did not cure these deficiencies. 

Consequently, an appeal on these grounds is frivolous, and his IFP status is terminated. 

The Clerk of the Court is requested to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and the Ninth 

Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05195-JD Document 82 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 1