Doe v. County of Sonoma
- James Donato
- 3:16-cv-05195
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In John Doe v. County of Sonoma, Judge Donato terminated Doe’s appeal IFP status after finding the appeal frivolous.
John Doe’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees in his pending appeal was affected. The order also concerned his previously dismissed § 1983 claims against California state and Sonoma County defendants.
What happened
In John Doe v. County of Sonoma, the Ninth Circuit asked the district court to decide whether John Doe could continue appealing without paying the filing fee.
The court said Doe’s claims against California state defendants had been dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. It also said his claims against Sonoma County defendants had been dismissed because he did not plausibly allege that a county policy or practice caused a violation. Doe had several chances to amend his complaint but did not fix these problems.
The court found that an appeal based on those issues would be frivolous and terminated Doe’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. Judge Donato directed the clerk to send the order to Doe and the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Doe v. County of Sonoma · No. 3:16-cv-05195
- James Donato
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
The Ninth Circuit referred a limited question to the district court: whether John Doe should continue to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the usual court fees) in his pending appeal, or whether the appeal was frivolous. The referral cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Coppedge v. United States.
Claims and Prior Rulings
The district court stated that Doe’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against California state defendants had been dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. The court also stated that Doe’s claims against Sonoma County defendants had been dismissed because he had not alleged facts plausibly showing a claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court said Doe had received multiple opportunities to amend his complaint but had not corrected these deficiencies.
Ruling
The court ruled that Doe was not entitled to continue proceeding without paying fees on appeal. It found that an appeal based on the stated grounds would be frivolous and terminated his in forma pauperis status. The clerk was requested to serve the order on Doe and the Ninth Circuit. The order did not state that the appeal itself was dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.