John Robert Demos, Jr. v. US Bancorp, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00258
• 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. C26-258-TMC-BAT 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 US BANCORP, 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 brings a federal whistleblower action, claiming that “I And The U.S. Government Are 18 Siamese Twins, If The Government Catches A Cold I Sneeze,” Dkt. 1, at 7, and asserting that he 19 has the right to appear as counsel for others,” Dkt. 1, at 27. Mr. Demos accuses the defendants, 20 private companies, of defrauding the government in numerous ways, Dkt. 1, at 3, and at “various 21 times” in “innumerable places. Dkt. 1, at 5. Mr. Demos does not, however, specify any actions 22 that would give rise to these claims aside from conclusory allegations that defendants acted 23 1 improperly. Plaintiff seeks thirty percent of whatever is awarded to the United States Attorney 2 General. Dkt. 1, at 41. 3 As a bar order litigant, plaintiff may submit only three IFP applications and proposed 4 actions each year. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992);

5 In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). 6 The 1992 Bar Order further provides that this Court will not accept for filing a proposed 7 complaint unless it “is accompanied by an affidavit that the claims have not been presented in 8 any other action in any court and that [Plaintiff] can and will produce evidence to support his 9 claims.” 1992 Bar Order at 3. Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), plaintiff must 10 demonstrate “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to proceed IFP because he has had 11 numerous prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state claim. See Demos 12 v. Lehman, MC99-113-JLW (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1999). 13 Plaintiff may not proceed with this action. Because plaintiff has had more than three prior 14 actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he may not proceed in

15 formal pauperis unless he alleges that he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Demos, MC99-113-JLW. Plaintiff’s proposed complaint does not contain “a 17 plausible allegation that [he] faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of 18 filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 19 Plaintiff thus has stated neither a plausible allegation of imminent harm nor a plausible claim 20 upon which relief may be granted.1 21

22 1 The Court notes that in addition to the current action, plaintiff filed nine other active IFP applications and proposed civil suits in January 2026. See No. C26-235-RAJ-DWC; No. C26- 23 238-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. C26-259-JNW-TLF; No. C26-264-RAJ-TLF. 1 The Court recommends DENYING plaintiff IFP status and DISMISSING the proposed 2 complaint, Dkt. 1, without prejudice in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & (g) and 3 standing bar orders. See In re John Robert Demos, MC91-269-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992); 4 In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). A

5 proposed Order is attached. 6 OBJECTIONS AND APPEAL 7 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore a notice of 8 appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the 9 assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case. 10 Objections, however, may be filed and served upon all parties no later than February 6, 11 2026. The Clerk should note the matter for February 6, 2026, as ready for the District Judge’s 12 consideration. Objections and responses shall not exceed twelve (12) pages. The failure to timely 13 object may affect the right to appeal. 14 This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Therefore a notice of

15 appeal seeking review in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should not be filed until the 16 assigned District Judge enters a judgment in the case. 17 DATED this 23rd day of January, 2026. 18 A 19 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23