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)

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