IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHARLES LEWIS BOBO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WASHINGTON STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

AND HEALTH SERVICES, 

Defendant. 

Charles Lewis Bobo 

General Delivery 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Pro se plaintiff 

Joseph Christy 

Case No. 6:14-cv-01069-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Washington State Attorney General's Office 

7141 Cleanwater Drive SW 

P.O. Box 40124 

Olympia, WA 98504 

Attorney for defendant 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01069-AA Document 15 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 6
AIKEN, Chief Judge: 

This is another in a long line of lawsuits instituted by pro 

se plaintiff Charles Bobo. Here, plaintiff filed a complaint 

against defendant Washington State Department of Social and Health 

Services. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). For the reasons set 

forth below, defendant's motion is granted and this case is 

dismissed. 

BACKGROUND 

Defendant is an agency of the State of Washington that 

provides public subsidy benefits. On November 3, 2004, defendant 

sent plaintiff a notice stating that certain steps, such as 

participation in mental health treatment, were necessary for him to 

maintain his eligibility for disability benefits. Defendant sent 

similar letters in 2005, 2008, and 2010. In each instance, 

plaintiff did not respond. 

On July 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court, 

alleging that defendant committed wrongful "conduct [in] Sept. 

2004." Compl. at pg. 3. Although difficult to decipher, plaintiff's 

allegations implicate a deprivation of rights, such that the Court 

construes his complaint as asserting a claim for the wrongful 

termination of benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Plaintiff seeks 

1 Plaintiff does not expressly identify 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or 

any other statute, as the basis of his claim or articulate a 

cognizable legal theory thereunder; however, to the extent he did 

not intend to allege a deprivation of rights under a federal 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01069-AA Document 15 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 6
$30 million in damages. On July 21, 2014, this Court granted 

plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). On 

September 18, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff 

did not file any opposition to defendant's motion. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must dismiss an IFP 

complaint, either sua sponte or pursuant to a motion made by the 

opposing party, if it "is frivolous or malicious" or "fails to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted." 2 8 U.S. C. § 

1915(e) (2) (B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en bane). 

Similarly, where the plaintiff "fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted," the court must dismiss the action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6). To survive a motion to dismiss, the 

complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the complaint 

is liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff and its 

allegations are taken as true. Rosen v. Walters, 719 F.2d 1422, 

1424 (9th Cir. 1983). However, bare assertions that amount to 

nothing more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements" of a 

claim "are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true." 

statute, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 

u.s.c. §§ 1331-1332. 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01069-AA Document 15 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 6
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). Rather, to state a 

plausible claim for relief, the complaint "must contain sufficient 

allegations of underlying facts" to support its legal conclusions. 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F. 3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 

132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant contends that plaintiff's complaint is both 

frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. In the alternative, defendant asserts that the Court lacks 

personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, therefore his 

pleadings are "held to less stringent standards" than those drafted 

by lawyers. Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 

916, 923 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1000 (2012). 

Nevertheless, even construing plaintiff's pleadings in the most 

favorable and liberal light, his complaint is dismissed for two 

reasons. 

First, the Eleventh Amendment "bars suits in federal court 

[for damages] against a state and its agencies brought by its own 

citizens and citizens of other states." In re Jackson, 184 F. 3d 

1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Defendant is a 

political subdivision of the State of Washington and has not 

consented to suit. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 

465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984) (a state waives sovereign immunity under 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01069-AA Document 15 Filed 12/11/14 Page 4 of 6
the Eleventh Amendment only by explicitly consenting to suit) . 

Further, plaintiff's only requested relief is "30,000,000 million 

dollar[s] ." Compl. at pg. 5. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to 

sovereign immunity. 

Second, plaintiff's claim fails at the pleadings level. In its 

entirety, the complaint consists of one paragraph devoid of context 

or factual content. The attachments to plaintiff's complaint reveal 

only that he previously received food and medical benefits, but 

failed to comply with defendant's requirements in order to continue 

such benefits. The attachments fail to support a cognizable claim 

of wrongful conduct by defendant. Further, plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 claim is time barred to the extent it is based on events that 

transpired prior to July 2012. See Cholla v. Ready Mix, Inc., 382 

F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2004) (Oregon applies a two-year statute of 

limitations to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims) . 2 Moreover, plaintiff 

failed to allege the existence of an agency policy, custom, or 

practice that was the moving force behind the alleged deprivation 

of rights at issue, which is a requisite element. See Mabe v. San 

Bernadino Cnty. Deo't of Pub. Soc. Serv., 237 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (outlining the elements for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims 

2 Defendant applies Washington's three-year statute of 

limitations to plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Def.'s Mot. to 

Dismiss 5. The Court need not resolve this discrepancy because 

plaintiff's claim is time barred under either standard, as he 

alleges that defendant's wrongful conduct took place in September 

2004. 

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01069-AA Document 15 Filed 12/11/14 Page 5 of 6
asserted against public bodies). For these reasons, defendant's 

motion is granted. 

Finally, as this Court recently noted, plaintiff "has filed at 

least forty pro se complaints in the U.S. District Courts for the 

District of Oregon and the Western District of Washington," several 

of which have already been dismissed as frivolous. Bobo v. Plymouth 

Housing Grp., 2014 WL 6085858, *2 (D.Or. Nov. 7, 2014) (citations 

omitted). The Court therefore cautions plaintiff against filing 

further lawsuits that lack a reasonable basis in law or fact. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 12) is GRANTED and this 

case is DISMISSED. All pending motions are denied as moot. 

IT IS 

Dated 

SO ORDERED. 

this fj Waf December 2014. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01069-AA Document 15 Filed 12/11/14 Page 6 of 6