Demos v. Strange

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 31, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01695
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., CASE NO. 2:24-CV-1695-KKE-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 CHERYL STRANGE, et al., Noting Date: November 21, 2024 13 Defendants. 14

15 Plaintiff John Demos, Jr., a state prisoner, has filed an application for leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a proposed civil rights complaint. Dkts. 1, 1-1; see also Dkt. 2. As 17 discussed below, the Court finds the proposed complaint should be dismissed without prejudice 18 and the IFP application should be denied. 19 Plaintiff is well-known locally and nationally as an abusive litigant. He is under pre- 20 filing bar orders in a number of courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, 21 the Washington State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme 22 Court. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993). Because of Plaintiff’s history as 23 an abusive litigant, he is permitted to submit only three IFP applications and proposed actions 24 1 each year. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992) (“the 2 1992 Bar Order”); In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. 3 Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). The 1992 Bar Order further provides that this Court will not accept for 4 filing a proposed complaint unless it “is accompanied by an affidavit that the claims have not

5 been presented in any other action in any court and that [Plaintiff] can and will produce evidence 6 to support his claims.” 1992 Bar Order at 3. In addition, because Plaintiff has acquired more than 7 three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP unless he plausibly alleges 8 that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. See 9 Demos v. Lehman, MC99-113-JLW (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1999); see also Andrews v. 10 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). 11 In the proposed complaint, Plaintiff names nine Washington State Department of 12 Corrections employees and states that he is being denied access to the grievance processes at the 13 Monroe Correctional Complex – Twin Rivers Unit. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff has also attempted to 14 attach a supplement, which contains conclusory complaints related to the conditions of his

15 confinement. See Dkt. 2. 16 Plaintiff may not proceed with this action. At the time Plaintiff submitted his proposed 17 complaint to the Court for filing he had already exceeded his annual limit of IFP applications and 18 proposed actions for the year. See, e.g., Demos v. State of Washington Department of 19 Corrections, et al., C24-5809-BJR (W.D. Wash.); Demos v. Musk, et al., C24-1581-RSL (W.D. 20 Wash.); Demos v. Gonzalez, et al., C24-5845-RSM-TLF (W.D. Wash.); Demos v. Simpson, et 21 al., C24-1614-BJR-SKV (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff also did not submit the separate affidavit as 22 required by the 1992 Bar Order. 23

24 1 Finally, Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not contain “a plausible allegation that [he] 2 faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 3 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff alleges he lacks access to the 4 grievance process. Dkt. 1-1. He does not allege he is facing imminent danger of serious physical

5 injury. While Plaintiff briefly references a potential prostate cancer diagnosis and denial of 6 medical care, his medical issues do not appear to relate to the claims in his proposed complaint 7 and appear to be included in an effort to overcome the three strikes provision in § 1915(g). See 8 Dkt. 1-1 at 16, 19. Further, Plaintiff attached grievances to the proposed complaint that he filed 9 as recently as October 2024. See Dkt. 1-2 at 2. While the grievances were not accepted due to 10 violations of the grievance policy, the allegations in his proposed complaint do not appear 11 credible. 12 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s proposed complaint (Dkt. 1-1) be 13 dismissed without prejudice, the IFP application be denied (Dkt. 1), and this case be closed. 14 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and

15 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 16 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 18 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 19 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 20 ready for consideration by the District Judge on November 21, 2024. 21 Dated this 31st day of October, 2024. 22 A 23 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 24