Koffa v. Andrew et al
ORDER granting Defendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss and denying as moot Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Deposition. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(TH) (cc: Pro Se Litigants via U.S. Mail)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
BENNIE SAYEE KOFFA,
CASE NO. C17-1466-JCC
ANDREW, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) and
Plaintiff’s motion for deposition (Dkt. No. 8). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing
and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the
motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) and DENIES the motion for deposition (Dkt. No. 8) for the
reasons explained herein.
Pro se Plaintiff Bennie Koffa brings suit against Andrew; Peter’s Place Homeless Shelter;
Tim Burgess, acting in his official capacity as Seattle’s Mayor; Jay Inslee, acting in his official
capacity as Washington’s Governor; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Dkt. No. 3
at 1–2.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “engaged in acts of (systemic) discrimination and
defamation against [him] in diverse ways.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff supports this allegation with a
description of a single incident—Defendant Andrew, while working at Defendant Peter’s Place
Homeless Shelter, initially refused to provide Plaintiff a bus ticket on the basis of Plaintiff’s race,
PAGE - 1
although Defendant Andrew shortly thereafter provided Plaintiff the ticket. (Id. at 5.) These facts
are insufficient to support a claim of discrimination. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672
(2009). Further, for this Court to have federal question jurisdiction over a discrimination claim,
the perpetrator must have a relation to a government entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff fails to
state any facts demonstrating the relationship between Peter’s Place Homeless Shelter and the
government actors he names as Defendants.
The Court grants pro se litigants greater leeway than represented litigants. Eldridge v.
Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982)). But such leeway has its limits. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)
(“courts should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants”). Plaintiff’s complaint exceeds
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED
without prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion for deposition (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED as moot. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
DATED this 27th day of December 2017.
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PAGE - 2
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?