John Robert Demos Jr. v. Robert Ferguson, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00230
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS JR., CASE NO. 2:26-cv-230-JNW 8 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 9 RECOMMENDATION v. 10 ROBERT FERGUSON, et al. 11 Respondents. 12 13 On February 12, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michelle Peterson issued a 14 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court 15 administratively close this matter. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. Demos filed a timely objection to 16 the R&R, which is now before the Court. Dkt. No. 7. Having conducted a de novo 17 review of the R&R, Demos’s objections, and the relevant record, the Court 18 OVERRULES Demos’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and directs the Clerk to 19 administratively CLOSE this matter pursuant to the Order issued by the Court in 20 Demos v. Stanley, MC97-31-JLW (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997). 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 allows a party to file written objections to 22 an R&R within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections must be 23 1 “specific” and relate “to the [R&R’s] proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. 2 “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

3 disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The 4 resulting order need not address each objection specifically. United States v. Ramos, 5 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (“We have presumed that district courts conduct 6 proper de novo review where they state they have done so, even if the order fails to 7 specifically address a party’s objections.”). 8 Demos is a state prisoner and a prolific litigant who is under pre-filing bar

9 orders in multiple jurisdictions, including this District, the Eastern District of 10 Washington, Washington State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 11 United States Supreme Court. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993). 12 One of those orders from the Western District of Washington provides for the return 13 without filing of any petition that seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 §§ 1651, 2253, 2254, unless accompanied by the filing fee. See Demos v. Stanley, 15 MC97-0031-JLW (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997).

16 Having conducted a de novo review, the Court agrees with the R&R. Demos 17 seeks an extraordinary writ under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and has not paid the filing fee. 18 His objections, Dkt. No. 7, do not cure this deficiency. 19 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 20 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and OVERRULES 21 Demos’s objections. Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.

22 23 1 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this matter pursuant 9 to the Order issued by the Court in Demos v. Stanley, MC97-31-JLW

3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997) 4 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

5 record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

G Dated this 27th day of April, 2026.

8 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23