Doe v. County of Sonoma, 16-cv-05195-JD. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200128a08
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2020
Summary: ORDER RE IFP STATUS Re: Dkt. No. 80 JAMES DONATO , District Judge . 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.
Summary: ORDER RE IFP STATUS Re: Dkt. No. 80 JAMES DONATO , District Judge . 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. ..
More
ORDER RE IFP STATUS
Re: Dkt. No. 80
JAMES DONATO, District Judge.
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.
Source: Leagle
