Demos v. Inslee

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01171
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR, CASE NO. C23-1171 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 JAY R. INSLEE, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 2, recommending that the Court deny pro se 15 plaintiff John Robert Demos’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss this case 16 without prejudice, and deny as moot his motion for appointment of counsel. 17 The R&R points out that Demos is subject to a Bar Order in this District (and 18 others), that he has already exceeded his annual limit of three in forma pauperis 19 applications, and that his proposed class action complaint’s general allegations and 20 grievances about uncomfortable conditions at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla 21 Walla do not plausibly allege that he personally faces imminent harm. 22 1 A district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 2 disposition to which a party has properly objected. The district judge may accept, reject,

3 or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to 4 the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A proper objection 5 requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. 6 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 7 Nevertheless, objections to an R&R are not an appropriate vehicle to rehash or re- 8 litigate the points considered and resolved by the magistrate judge. See, e.g., El Papel

9 LLC v. Inslee, No. 20-cv-01323 RAJ-JRC, 2021 WL 71678, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 8, 10 2021) (“Because the Court finds that nearly all objections are merely a rehash of 11 arguments already raised and decided upon by the Magistrate Judge, the Court will not 12 address each objection here.”); Aslanyan v. Herzog, No. 14-cv-0511 JLR, 2014 WL 13 7272437, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2014) (rejecting a challenge to a magistrate judge’s

14 report and recommendation when “all of [plaintiff’s] objections simply rehash arguments 15 contained in his amended opening memorandum or in his reply memorandum”). 16 As courts in other districts have recognized and explained, such re-litigation is not 17 an efficient use of judicial resources. There is no benefit to the judiciary “if the district 18 court[] is required to review the entire matter de novo because the objecting party merely

19 repeats the arguments rejected by the magistrate. In such situations, this Court follows 20 other courts that have overruled the objections without analysis.” Hagberg v. Astrue, No. 21 CV-09-01-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2009 WL 3386595, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2009). In short, 22 an objection to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations “is not a vehicle for 1 the losing party to relitigate its case.” Id.; see also Conner v. Kirkegard, No. CV 15-81- 2 H-DLC-JTJ, 2018 WL 830142, at *1 (D. Mont. Feb. 12, 2018); Fix v. Hartford Life &

3 Accident Ins. Co., CV 16-41-M-DLC-JCL, 2017 WL 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 4 2017) (collecting cases); Eagleman v. Shinn, No. CV-18-2708-PHX-RM (DTF), 2019 5 WL 7019414, at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2019) (“[O]bjections that merely repeat or rehash 6 claims asserted in the Petition, which the magistrate judge has already addressed in the 7 R&R, are not sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.”). 8 Demos’s 38 page handwritten objections are not sufficient under this standard. He

9 largely reiterates that conditions are difficult in the prison, for all prisoners. Not only is 10 this not enough to overcome the Bar Order to sue on his own behalf, but Demos cannot 11 represent his fellow prisoners because he is not an attorney. Representing another person 12 or entity in court is the practice of law. To practice law, one must be an attorney. RCW 13 2.48.170. There is a pro se exception to this general rule, under which a person “‘may

14 appear and act in any court as his own attorney without threat of sanction for 15 unauthorized practice.’” Cottringer v. State, Dep’t of Employment Sec., 162 Wn. App. 16 782, 787, (2011) (quoting Wash. State Bar Ass’n v. Great W. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan 17 Ass’n, 91 Wn.2d 48, 56 (1978)). 18 The pro se exception is, however, extremely limited and applies “‘only if the

19 layperson is acting solely on his own behalf”” with respect to his own legal rights and 20 obligations. Cottringer, 162 Wn. App. at 787–88 (quoting Wash. State Bar Ass’n, 91 21 Wn.2d at 57). Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona on his own behalf, 22 that privilege is personal to him. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1 1966). He has no authority to appear as an attorney for anyone other than himself. Russell 2 v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44, 45

3 (D.C. Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 944 (1954). 4 Demos’s objections are OVERRULED. The R&R is ADOPTED. Demos’s 5 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED 6 without prejudice and without leave to amend. The motion for appointment of counsel 7 is DENIED as moot. 8 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated this 14th day of September, 2023. 11 A 12 13 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 14 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22