John Robert Demos, Jr. v. Tim Lang, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-05151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C26-5151-RSM-BAT 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 TIM LANG, et al., 12 Defendants.

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 purports to be a private attorney general bringing a criminal complaint against prison 18 authorities, the governor of Washington State, and various members of the Pima County 19 Sheriff’s Department, claiming that he eavesdropped on conversations within the prison and 20 discovered that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department are behind the kidnapping of Nancy 21 Guthrie and that the defendants are preventing him from revealing this evidence. Dkt. 1, at 4, 7, 22 10. 23 1 As a bar order litigant, plaintiff may submit only three IFP applications and proposed 2 actions each year. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); 3 In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). 4 The 1992 Bar Order further provides that this Court will not accept for filing a proposed

5 complaint unless it “is accompanied by an affidavit that the claims have not been presented in 6 any other action in any court and that [Plaintiff] can and will produce evidence to support his 7 claims.” 1992 Bar Order at 3. Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff must 8 demonstrate “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to proceed IFP because he has had 9 numerous prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state claim. See Demos 10 v. Lehman, MC99-113-JLW (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1999). 11 Plaintiff may not proceed with this action. Because plaintiff has had more than three prior 12 actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he may not proceed in 13 formal pauperis unless he alleges that he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Demos, MC99-113-JLW. Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not contain “a

15 plausible allegation that [he] faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of 16 filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 17 Plaintiff thus has stated neither a plausible allegation of imminent harm nor a plausible claim 18 upon which relief may be granted.1 Moreover, plaintiff provides no support for the proposition 19

20 1 The Court notes that in addition to the current action, plaintiff has filed at least 20 other IFP applications and proposed civil suits thus far in 2026. See No. C26-235-RAJ-DWC; No. C26- 21 238-RSM-BAT; No. C26-251-JHC-GJL; No. C26-252-JHC-SKV; No. C26-254-TL-SKV; No. C26-255-JCC-GJL; No. C26-256-JHC-MLP; No. C26-258-TMC-BAT; No. C26-259-JNW-TLF; 22 No. C26-264-RAJ-TLF; No. C26-351-TMC-MLP; No. C26-356-KKE-DWC; No. 26-359-TMC; No. C26-375-LK-DWC; No. C26-380-BHS-SKV; No. C26-382-TMC-GJL; No. C26-395-BHS- 23 MLP; No. C26-408-JHC-TLF; No. C26-604-RSM-GJL; C26-5104-RSM-BAT; C26-5153-RAJ- DWC. 1 that he may, via a civil lawsuit, serve as a private attorney general bringing criminal actions on 2 behalf of the federal government, or for the proposition that the information he heard via 3 eavesdropping within the penitentiary is reliable and is being suppressed. 4 The Court recommends DENYING plaintiff IFP status and DISMISSING the proposed

5 complaint, Dkt. 1, without prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & (g) and 6 standing bar orders. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); 7 In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). A 8 proposed Order is attached. 9 OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL 10 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore a notice of 11 appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the 12 assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case. 13 Objections, however, may be filed and served upon all parties no later than March 6, 14 2026. Regardless of whether objections are filed, the Clerk should note the matter for March 6,

15 2026, as ready for the District Judge’s consideration. Objections and responses shall not exceed 16 twelve (12) pages. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal. 17 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore a notice of 18 appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the 19 assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case. 20 DATED this 20th day of February, 2026. 21 A 22 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 23 United States Magistrate Judge