John Robert Demos, Jr. v. The State of Washington, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, Case No. C26-1440-JLR-MLP v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

Bar-order litigant John Demos has submitted to the Court for filing a proposed civil rights complaint. (Dkt. # 1.) He has not paid the filing fee nor 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 included in his proposed complaint an altered version of a motion for leave to proceed IFP originating with another court, apparently addressed to the Washington State Supreme Court. (Dkt. # 1 at 32-37.) 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 he has been forced to pay exorbitant fees and denied access to state courts to pursue claims based on the Prison Rape Elimination Act. (See dkt. # 1 at 4-9.) 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). 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 May 19, 2026. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff and to the Honorable James L. Robart. Dated this 28th day of April, 2026. A United States Magistrate Judge