Doe v. City Of Concord
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-02432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Doe v. City of Concord, Judge Donato revoked Jane Doe’s fee waiver, finding her appeal frivolous after she failed to plead a viable federal claim.
Jane Doe’s ability to pursue her appeal without paying court fees was affected. The order also addressed the alleged federal and state claims against the defendants, but its stated disposition was revocation of her fee-waiver status.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. City of Concord, Jane Doe appealed after the court found that her amended complaint did not plausibly state an equal-protection claim. The Ninth Circuit sent the issue of her fee waiver back to the district court for review.
The court said Doe’s allegations did not show that defendants treated her unlawfully differently from comparable crime victims. It also said her related conspiracy and municipal-liability claims could not continue without a viable federal civil-rights claim, and that the remaining state claims were not appropriate for federal court at that stage.
Judge Donato ruled that the appeal was frivolous because it had no arguable basis in fact or law. He revoked Doe’s permission to proceed without paying appeal-related fees and directed the clerk to send the order to the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Doe v. City Of Concord · No. 3:20-cv-02432
- James Donato
- May 13, 2022
Background
The Ninth Circuit referred a limited issue to the district court: whether Jane Doe’s earlier permission to proceed without paying court fees on appeal should continue, or whether her appeal was frivolous or brought in bad faith. Doe was representing herself. The district court had previously determined that, even after amending her complaint twice, she could not state a plausible equal-protection claim against the City of Concord, the City of Cotati, Contra Costa County, Sonoma County, and individuals associated with the listed police and district attorney’s offices.
Court’s reasoning
Under the federal rules and statutes governing fee waivers on appeal, a person may proceed without paying fees only if the required financial showing and appeal information are provided and the appeal is taken in good faith. An appeal is not taken in good faith if it raises no nonfrivolous issue. The court described a frivolous issue as one with no arguable basis in fact or law.
The court concluded that Doe’s equal-protection theories were legally insufficient. Her allegations involved how officials handled her report of a rape that had occurred five years earlier, including questions about her reason for reporting it, comparisons with male rape victims, and comparisons with other rape or non-rape cases. The court said these allegations improperly treated all people who were not injured as a preferred group and did not identify clear standards for comparing the treatment of her case with other cases. It therefore found that her “class of one” theory also failed as a matter of law.
The court further stated that, without a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doe’s conspiracy claim under § 1985 and her municipal-liability claims in counts two through four were not viable. Because no federal claim remained at that stage, the court said it was appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims.
Disposition
The court found that Doe’s action had no arguable basis in fact or law and consequently revoked her permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. It directed the clerk to forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 22-15384. The order does not state that the district court dismissed the action in this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.