Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 JOHN DOE, Case No. 16-cv-05195-JD Plaintiff, y. ORDER RE IFP STATUS Re: Dkt. No. 80 COUNTY OF SONOMA et al., Defendants. 11 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 14 || 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 a || 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. ||…