Demos v. State of Washington

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS JR., CASE NO. C22-0104-JCC-SKV 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner John Demos’s objections (Dkt. No. 3) 16 to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 2) of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, 17 United States Magistrate Judge, recommending administratively closing this matter. Having 18 thoroughly considered Mr. Demos’s objection and the relevant record, the Court hereby 19 OVERRULES the objection, ADOPTS the R&R, and DIRECTS the Clerk to administratively 20 CLOSE the case and STRIKE any pending motions as moot. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Mr. Demos seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.) 23 However, as Judge Vaughan notes, a decades-old court order prevents Mr. Demos from seeking 24 an extraordinary writ under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254, unless he pays the filing fee. See 25 Demos v. Stanley, Case No. MC97-0031-JLW, Dkt. No. 1 at 4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997); see 26 also Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. 1 denied, 498 U.S. 1123 (1991) (concluding “that it is appropriate . . . to bar the filing of any new 2 petitions seeking extraordinary writs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254 directed at 3 the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington”). Judge 4 Vaughan thus recommends administratively closing this matter. (Dkt. No. 2.) Mr. Demos 5 objects. (Dkt. No. 3.) 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R that a party 8 properly objects to. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party does this by timely 9 filing “specific written objections.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because this requires specific 10 objections, general objections or repeating prior arguments is tantamount to no objection at all. 11 Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also 12 Garvey v. Uttecht, 2020 WL 5946157, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2020). Considering 13 insufficiently specific objections would essentially involve de novo review of the whole report, 14 defeating the purpose of referring matters to the magistrate judge, causing a duplication of time 15 and effort, and wasting judicial resources. Id. Thus, de novo review is not required when a party 16 fails to direct the court to a specific error in the report and recommendation. Strawbridge v. 17 Sugar Mountain Resort, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 472, 475 (W.D.N.C. 2003); see also Djelassi v. 18 ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (district courts only 19 review de novo “those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written 20 objection is made”). 21 While pro se litigants are held to a more lenient standard, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), that does not excuse them from making proper objections, see, e.g., Carter v. 23 Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, he is expected to abide 24 by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). 25 Mr. Demos’s objections are insufficient to trigger this Court’s reconsideration of Judge 26 Vaughan’s legal determinations . He fails to identify any specific errors in the R&R, instead 1 making conclusory assertions that have little to do with the R&R. (Dkt. No. 3.) Nor is there any 2 indication Demos has since paid the filing fee. 3 III. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 5 (1) Mr. Demos’s objections (Dkt. No. 3) are OVERRULED. 6 (2) The R&R (Dkt. No. 2) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 7 (3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this matter and STRIKE any 8 pending motions as moot. 9 10 DATED this 5th day of April 2022.

11 A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26