Koffa v. Andrew et al

Filing 19

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)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 BENNIE SAYEE KOFFA, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 12 CASE NO. C17-1466-JCC ANDREW, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) and 16 Plaintiff’s motion for deposition (Dkt. No. 8). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing 17 and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the 18 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) and DENIES the motion for deposition (Dkt. No. 8) for the 19 reasons explained herein. 20 Pro se Plaintiff Bennie Koffa brings suit against Andrew; Peter’s Place Homeless Shelter; 21 Tim Burgess, acting in his official capacity as Seattle’s Mayor; Jay Inslee, acting in his official 22 capacity as Washington’s Governor; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Dkt. No. 3 23 at 1–2.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “engaged in acts of (systemic) discrimination and 24 defamation against [him] in diverse ways.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff supports this allegation with a 25 description of a single incident—Defendant Andrew, while working at Defendant Peter’s Place 26 Homeless Shelter, initially refused to provide Plaintiff a bus ticket on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, ORDER C17-1466-JCC PAGE - 1 1 although Defendant Andrew shortly thereafter provided Plaintiff the ticket. (Id. at 5.) These facts 2 are insufficient to support a claim of discrimination. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 3 (2009). Further, for this Court to have federal question jurisdiction over a discrimination claim, 4 the perpetrator must have a relation to a government entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff fails to 5 state any facts demonstrating the relationship between Peter’s Place Homeless Shelter and the 6 government actors he names as Defendants. 7 The Court grants pro se litigants greater leeway than represented litigants. Eldridge v. 8 Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 9 (1982)). But such leeway has its limits. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) 10 (“courts should not have to serve as advocates for pro se litigants”). Plaintiff’s complaint exceeds 11 those limits. 12 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED 13 without prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion for deposition (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED as moot. The 14 Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. 15 DATED this 27th day of December 2017. A 16 17 18 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C17-1466-JCC 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?