ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff Cornelius Oluseyi Ogunsalu, who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action arising out of his prior employment with and subsequent termination by Sweetwater Union High School District ("SUHSD"). (ECF No. 1.) On November 21, 2017, the Court dismissed Ogunsalu's claims with prejudice against SUHSD on the basis that SUHSD was immune from the claims under the Eleventh Amendment. (ECF No. 13.) The Court also dismissed with leave to amend Ogunsalu's claims against Defendant Jennifer Carbuccia. (Id.) After several failed attempts to file a proper amended complaint, the Court denied with prejudice Ogunsalu's motion for leave to file first amended complaint, which alleged additional claims against Carbuccia and additional defendants. (ECF No. 27.) Thereafter, Ogunsalu filed a timely notice of appeal of that Order and the clerk's judgment in favor of the defendants. (Pl.'s Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 29, at 2.)

On March 22, 2018, the Ninth Circuit referred this matter to this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis ("IFP") status should continue for Ogunsalu's appeal, or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. (ECF No. 32.) For the following reasons, the Court finds that Ogunsalu's IFP status should continue.

An appeal is in "good faith" where it seeks review of any issue that is "non-frivolous." Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Huffman v. Boersen, 406 U.S. 337, 339 (1972) ("In the federal system, `good faith' has `been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a non-frivolous question for review.'") (quoting Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring)). In turn, an issue is frivolous if it has "no arguable basis in fact or law." O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).

Here, the Court found that Ogunsalu sought leave to amend his complaint to allege Title VII and ADEA discrimination claims identical to the claims previously dismissed without leave to amend by the Court. (ECF No. 27 at 4-5.) The Court found that amending the complaint to add these claims against individual SUHSD employees would be futile because, in part, there is no liability for individuals under Title VII or the ADEA. (Id.) Ogunsalu also failed to cure the deficiencies outlined in the Court's previous orders regarding the claims against Carbuccia. (Id. at 5-7.) Lastly, Ogunsalu sought to add claims under a criminal statute that provides no private right of action. (Id. at 7.) Though the Court denied with prejudice Ogunsalu's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, given Ogunsalu's pro se status, this Court concludes that there is an "arguable basis in fact or law" in Ogunsalu's appeal. Therefore, the Court finds that the appeal is taken in good faith and is non-frivolous, and Ogunsalu's IFP status should continue. See Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092.

In accordance with the Ninth Circuit's referral notice, the Clerk of the Court shall notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the parties of this order. (ECF No. 32.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.