John Robert Demos, Jr. v. Hilton Worldwide Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, Case No. C26-351-TMC-MLP v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

Bar-order litigant John Demos has submitted to the Court for filing a proposed civil rights complaint, which he characterizes as a “Qui Tam Action + False Claim Complaint.” (Dkt. # 1.) He has not paid the filing fee or properly sought to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 Regardless, the Court has reviewed the proposed complaint and finds this case should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is well-known locally and nationally as an abusive litigant. He is under pre-filing bar orders in a number of courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, the Washington State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993). Because of Plaintiff’s history as an 1 Plaintiff appended to his complaint a form of unknown origin titled “Motion and Affidavit to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” (Dkt. # 1 at 60.) This is not adequate for an application to proceed IFP in this Court. abusive litigant, he is permitted to submit only three IFP applications and proposed actions each year in this Court. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). In addition, because Plaintiff has acquired more than three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

he may not proceed IFP unless he plausibly alleges that he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. See Demos v. Lehman, MC99-113-JLW (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1999); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may not proceed with this action. First, Plaintiff has not filed a proper IFP application. Regardless, Plaintiff has already submitted three IFP applications and proposed actions this year. See, e.g., Demos v. The Government Accountability Office, C26-235-RAJ- DWC (W.D. Wash.); Demos v. The Government Accountability Office, C26-238-RSM (W.D. Wash.); Demos v. The Blackstone Group, C26-255-JCC (W.D. Wash.). This alone precludes Plaintiff from proceeding with this action. In addition to already filing three proposed actions this year, Plaintiff has also failed to

allege imminent harm or state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the proposed complaint, Plaintiff alleges several companies and organizations have committed fraud. (See dkt. # 1 at 14.) Plaintiff's proposed complaint does not contain “a plausible allegation that [he] faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). It is also patently frivolous, lacking a single factual allegation. Accordingly, this Court recommends the proposed complaint (dkt. # 1) be dismissed and this case be closed. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s

motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on February 25, 2026. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Tiffany M. Cartwright. Dated this 4th day of February, 2026. A United States Magistrate Judge