IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHARLES LEWIS BOBO, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

BECKERMAN, Magistrate Judge. 

Case No. 6:15-cv-00965-SB 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Charles Lewis Bobo ("Bobo"), actingpro se, filed this action to obtain judicial review of the 

Social Security Commissioner's ("Commissioner") decision to grant him Supplemental Security 

Income benefits based upon a finding of disability due to a mental, rather than physical, impairment. 

Bobo moves to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Bobo is unable to afford the costs of 

litigation and his IFP Application (ECF No.2) is granted. The Clerk shall not issue process, 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00965-SB Document 10 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 5
however, as this case is dismissed for failure to seek timely review, and Bobo's claims are also 

barred by res judicata. 

A court should dismiss, at the earliest practical time, IFP actions that fail to state a claim for 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This Court must liberally construe Bobo's pro se Complaint 

in his favor and determine whether it is sufficient. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 

Bobo alleges: 

State here as briefly possible facts of your case= Claims under Title 12 Supplemental 

Security Income and Title 2. They denied in United State[s] of Appeal Ninth Circuit. 

Plaintiff seeks review under title 2 or Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

Describe how each defendant involved = Social Security Administrative July 2010 

Administrative Law Judge issued a fully favorable decision finding Mr. Bobo disable 

and entitled to SSI disability payment under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The 

Problem with decision was under mental condition should have been physical. 

When conduct occurred = 09 2004 

Any injuries suffered result = Yes damaged stomach, severe headache, black lung. 

(Compl. 3.) 

On July 6, 2010, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued a favorable decision, finding 

Bobo disabled and entitled to Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security 

Act. Bobo v. Astrue, No C12-1730-MAT, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 5, 2013) (Order Granting 

Motion to Dismiss) (hereinafter "WDC Order"). On January 3, 2012, the Appeals Council issued a 

notice denying Bobo's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the 

Commissioner. WDC Order at 2. The Notice of Appeals Council Action advised Bobo he could 

commence a civil action within sixty days of the date of its decision, and it was presumed he 

received a copy of the decision within five days of the decision date unless he showed otherwise. Id. 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00965-SB Document 10 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 5
The notice also stated that, if Bobo was unable to file for court review within sixty days, he could 

seek an extension of the deadline from the Appeals Council. Id. The Appeals Council sent the 

request to Bobo and his legal representative. !d. 

On October 11 , 2012, more that nine months after the decision of the Appeals Council, and 

more than seven months beyond the appeal period, Bobo initiated a civil action in the Western 

District of Washington. !d. Bobo acknowledged in his Complaint before the Washirtgton District 

Court that the January 3, 2012 Appeals Council notice advised he had sixty days to file a civil 

complaint. !d. The Washington District Court granted the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for 

failure to comply with the applicable statue oflimitations, including a failure to demonstrate a basis 

for equitable tolling. !d. at 3-8. 

Bobo appealed the Washington District Court's dismissal ofhis Complaint. Bobo v. Colvin, 

570 Fed. Appx. 713 (9th Cir. 2014). On April16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Washington 

District Court's decision to dismiss Bobo's Complaint as untimely. 

On July 25, 2014, Bobo filed a Complaint in the Oregon District Court, attempting once 

again to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. Bobo v. Commissioner ofSocial 

Security, Case No. 6:14-cv-1184-TC (D. Or. July 30, 2014) (Findings and Recommendation) 

(hereinafter "ODC F&R" ). A magistrate judge reviewed the history of Bobo's efforts to obtain 

review of the final decision of the Commissioner, and concluded the "principles of res judicata and 

collateral estoppel. preclude[ d)" the action in the Oregon District Court. ODC F&R at 4. The Court 

also found Bobo's Complaint was time barred. !d. The magistrate judge recommended Bobo's 

Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. !d. 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00965-SB Document 10 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 5
On September 2, 2014, a district judge adopted the magistrate judge's Findings and 

Recommendation, and entered Judgment dismissing Bobo's Complaint. Bobo, Case No. 6:14-cv1184-TC (ECF Nos. 9 and 1 0). Bobo immediately appealed from that Judgment and, on September 

25, 2014, the Ninth Circuit declined to allow Bobo's appeal to proceed because it was so 

"insubstantial as to not warrant further review." In re: CHARLES L. BOBO, Case No. 13-80148 (9th 

Cir. Sep. 25, 2014). 

In his present Complaint, Bobo agam attempts to obtain judicial review of the 

Commissioner's 2010 decision. As explained in numerous prior decisions, the time period for such 

an appeal expired long ago. As a result, Bobo's Complaint must be dismissed, with prejudice. 

In addition, Bobo's Complaint must be dismissed for the independent reason that his claims 

were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior federal action between the parties that resulted in 

a final judgment on the merits, i.e., the Western District of Washington action, as well as the prior 

District of Oregon action. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Systems, 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 

2005) ("Res judicata applies when the earlier suit (1) involved the same ' claim' or cause of action 

as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or 

privies." (quotations and citation omitted)); Stewartv. US. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 

2002) (the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and 

those that could have been raised in the prior action; dismissal for failure to state a claim is a 

"judgment on the merits" for purposes of the doctrine). 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00965-SB Document 10 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 5
For the reasons set forth above, Bobo' s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(ECF No.2) is GRANTED. Bobo's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED, with prejudice, prior 

to service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated trus JB'f..y ofJ une 2 015. 

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

~~;f~r~ STACIE F. BE6CERMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-00965-SB Document 10 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 5