Demos v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C22-5261-RSM-BAT 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff is well-known locally and nationally as an abusive litigant. He is under pre-filing 14 bar orders in a number of courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, the 15 Washington State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme 16 Court. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993). In the current proposed action, 17 plaintiff submits a “Motion for Clarification” in which he asserts that two clauses of the 18 Washington state constitution conflict with the United States Constitution as a matter of law. 19 Dkt. 1-1, at 1–4. He does not, however, set forth a case or controversy or suggest how he has 20 been personally affected by the purported conflict. Plaintiff has filed an IFP application. Dkt. 1. 21 As a bar order litigant, plaintiff may submit only three IFP applications and proposed 22 actions each year. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); 23 In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). 1 Furthermore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff must demonstrate “imminent danger of serious 2 physical injury” to proceed IFP because he has had numerous prior actions dismissed as 3 frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state claim. See Demos v. Lehman, MC99-113-JLW (W.D. 4 Wash. Aug. 23, 1999).

5 Plaintiff may not proceed with this action. Because plaintiff has had more than three prior 6 actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he may not proceed in 7 formal pauperis unless he alleges that he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 8 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Demos, MC99-113-JLW. Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not contain “a 9 plausible allegation that [he] faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of 10 filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). It also 11 contains no federal claims and is patently frivolous. 12 The Court recommends DENYING plaintiff IFP status and DISMISSING the proposed 13 complaint, Dkt. 1, without prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and standing bar 14 orders. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); In re

15 Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). A 16 proposed Order is attached. 17 The Clerk should note the matter for April 20, 2022, as ready for the District Judge’s 18 immediate consideration. 19 DATED this 20th day of April 2022. 20 A 21 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 22