Demos v. Gorsky

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, CASE NO. C22-834-RSM-BAT v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ALEX GORSKY, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff is well-known locally and nationally as an abusive litigant. He is under pre-filing bar orders in a number of courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, the Washington State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993). In the current proposed action, plaintiff alleges that the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson, Wells Fargo, and Google breached an oral agreement to give plaintiff controlling shares of their companies in return for his vote to bailout their companies. Dkt. 1-1, at 3, 9. He does not, however, allege any facts that would substantiate a case based on federal law or suggest why federal jurisdiction exists. He has not paid the civil filing fee and has not submitted an IFP application. As a bar order litigant, plaintiff may submit only three IFP applications and proposed actions each year. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). Furthermore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff must demonstrate “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to proceed IFP because he has had numerous prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state claim. See Demos v. Lehman, MC99-113-JLW (W.D.

Wash. Aug. 23, 1999). Plaintiff may not proceed with this action. Because plaintiff has had more than three prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he may not proceed in formal pauperis unless he alleges that he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Demos, MC99-113-JLW. Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not contain “a plausible allegation that [he] faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). It also contains no federal claims and is patently frivolous. The Court recommends DENYING plaintiff IFP status and DISMISSING the proposed complaint, Dkt. 1, without prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and standing bar

orders. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). A proposed Order is attached. The Clerk should note the matter for June 15, 2022, as ready for the District Judge’s immediate consideration. DATED this 15th day of June, 2022. A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge