Bobo v. State of Arizona et al
Filing
6
Order and Findings & Recommendation: Order granting Application to Proceed IFP 1 . Findings and Recommendation: Complaint 2 should be dismissed. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 8/11/2014. Signed on 7/23/2014 by Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (plb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
6:14-cv-1 072-TC
CHARLES LEWIS BOBO,
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA DEPT. OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY, and MARICOPA
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants.
COFFIN, Magistrate Judge:
Pro se plaintiff, Charles Bobo, filed this action against the State of Arizona Department of
Economic Security and the Maricopa Medical Center on July 3, 2014. Plaintiff moves to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP). A review of plaintiffs application reveals he is unable to afford the costs
oflitigation and his application (#I) is therefore granted. However, the clerk shall not issue process
as the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The court should dismiss, at the earliest practical time, cetiain IFP actions that fail to state
a claim.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In determining the sufficiency of a prose complaint, the
comi must be mindful to constme it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972). The comi must "accept as hue all of the allegations in the complaint and all
Page 1 -FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff." Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff alleges what could be construed as a violation of his due process rights concerning
the denial of benefits or discontinuation of food stamp benefits under Arizona's general assistance
program based on the lack of disability detetmined by Dr. Douglas Nelson apparently of the
Maricopa Medical Center. Plaintiff seeks "500,000 million dollars" in damages as a result. No
liberal construction of the complaint demonstrates a viable cause of action. Beyond issues of the
State of Arizona's immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (section 1983 actions do not lie against a State), and the Eleventh
Amendment, there is a statute of limitations issue as plaintiff alleges the actions giving rise to his
case occurred on April2, 2008. 1 Fmihermore, the complaint and its attachments make clear that the
actions giving rise to this case occurred in Arizona at time when plaintiff resided in Arizona.
Accordingly, the comi lacks specific personal jurisdiction over defendants and there are no
allegations to suggest the comi has general jurisdictions over them. 2 Even if plaintiff could amend
1
Again, assuming plaintiff alleges a cause of action under 42 U.S. C. § 1983, the court
borrows Arizona's two year statute of limitations. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d
969, 974 (9th Cir. 2004); see Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-542.
2
The court may exercise jmisdiction over any pmiy so long as "prosecution of the action
against a defendant in this state is not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or the
Constitution of the United States." Or.R.Civ.P. 4 L. Thus, the long-mm statute of the State of
Oregon is coextensive with the limits of federal due process. Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Mach.
Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9'h Cir. 1990). When the activities of a defendant within the State of
Oregon are "continuous and systematic" or "substantial," a comi may exercise general personal
jurisdiction over that defendant without offending notions of due process. See Lake v. Lake, 817
F.2d 1416, 1420 (9'h Cir. 1987). In addition, there is a three-part test for determining when
limited specific jurisdiction may be exercised over defendants: 1) a nomesident defendant must
purposefully avail herself of the privilege of conducting activities in the fomm by some
affirmative act or conduct; 2) plaintiffs claims must arise out of or result from the defendant's
forum-related activities; and 3) exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Roth v. Garcia
Marque, 942 F.2d 617,620-21 (9'h Cir. 1991).
'
Page 2- FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
to cure such defects, it is clear that the interests of justice are better served by defening venue to
Arizona. "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest ofjustice, a district comi may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The comi should consider private and public interest factors affecting the
convenience of the fmum. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9'h
Cir. 1986).
Private factors include the "relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of
compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance
of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate
to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious and inexpensive." Gulf Oil Corp, v. Gilbeti, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct.
839,843,91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). Public factors include "the administrative difficulties
flowing from court congestion; the 'local interest in having localized controversies
decided at home'; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a fmum that is
at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessmy
problems in conflict oflaws, or in the application offoreign law; and the unfaimess
ofburdening citizens in an umelated forum withjmy duty." Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S.
at 241 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. at 258 n. 6 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 509,67 S.Ct.
at 843).
Id. Of course, a comi must balance the preference accorded plaintiffs choice of fmum with the
burden of litigating in an inconvenient forum. Id. Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiffs choice offm·um should rarely be disturbed. Gulf Oil Corp., 501 U.S. at
508.
Here, as noted, the complaint makes clear that this action m·ose exclusively within the borders
of Arizona. The administrative laws of the State of Arizona must be constmed to dete1mine the
appropriate process due and any liberty or propetiy interests at stake. Most, if not all, of the
documentmy evidence will be located in Arizona as are the vast majority of witnesses. Although
plaintiffs choice offmum is Oregon, it appears that is only because he has relocated from Arizona
at some point in the six years since the activities given rise to this action occmTed. The balance of
Page 3- FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
convenience overwhelmingly favors the Arizona defendants.
Accordingly, the court should dismiss this action with prejudice to refiling in this court as
it is clear that an amendment will not resolve the deficiencies in the complaint.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit
Court of appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l), Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district co uti's judgment or appealable order. The
parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation
within which to file specific written objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties shall have
fomieen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections
to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge will be considered as a waiver of a party's right
to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right to
appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to this
recommendation.
DATED this
b_ day ofJuly 2014.
TH~
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 4- FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?