Demos v. King County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01504
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., CASE NO. C21-1504 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 10 KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 11 Respondents. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 2, and 15 Petitioner John Demos, Jr.’s objections to the R&R, Dkt. 3. 16 In November 2021, Petitioner filed a proposed petition seeking release from 17 confinement, which the Court construes as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. Dkt. 1. Petitioner is under pre-filing bar orders in a number of courts, including 19 this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, the Washington State courts, the Ninth 20 Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Demos v. 21 Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993) (per curiam). An order of this Court provides for the 22 return without filing of any petition that seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1 §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254, unless accompanied by the filing fee. See Demos v. Stanley, 97- 2 mc-0031-JLW, Dkt. 1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997). 3 Petitioner did not accompany his § 2254 petition with the filing fee, and Judge

4 Creatura thus issued the instant R&R recommending the petition’s dismissal as 5 improperly filed. Dkt. 2. The R&R further recommends that Petitioner’s motion for leave 6 to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of appealability be denied. Id. Petitioner 7 objects to the R&R. Dkt. 3. 8 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

9 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 10 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 11 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 12 Petitioner’s objections do not address his failure to pay the filing fee as required 13 by the Court’s previous order. The Court agrees with the R&R that this matter should be

14 dismissed without prejudice because of Petitioner’s failure to pay the filing fee. 15 The Court having considered the R&R, Petitioner’s objections, and the remaining 16 record, does hereby find and order as follows: 17 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 18 (2) Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1., is DENIED;

19 (3) Petitioner’s proposed petition, Dkt. 1-1, is DISMISSED without 20 prejudice; 21 (4) Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and 22 \\ 1 (5) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 2 Dated this 18th day of January, 2022. A 3 4 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 5 United States District Judge

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22