John Robert Demos, Jr. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00382
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., CASE NO. 2:26-cv-00382-TMC-GJL 9 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, Noting Date: March 10, 2026 11 INC., et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Bar-order litigant John Demos has submitted to the Court for filing a proposed civil rights 14 Complaint, which he characterizes as a “False Claims Derivative Complaint and Qui Tam 15 Action,” along with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Dkts. 1, 1-1. 16 Plaintiff is well known locally and nationally as an abusive litigant. He is subject to pre- 17 filing bar orders in a number of courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, 18 the Washington State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme 19 Court. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993). 20 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed IFP unless he demonstrates that he 21 is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” because he has had more than three prior 22 actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See Demos v. Lehman, 23 MC99-113-JLW (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1999). Plaintiff’s submission does not contain “a 24 1 plausible allegation that [he] faced imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time of 2 filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Instead, 3 Plaintiff alleges that the named Defendants have committed fraud and related offenses. Dkt. 1-1 4 at 6–8. These allegations are insufficient to satisfy the imminent-danger exception to § 1915(g).

5 For these reasons, this Court recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP Application (Dkt. 1) be 6 DENIED, that any proposed Motions be DENIED as moot, and that Plaintiff’s proposed 7 Complaint (Dkt. 1-1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. A proposed Order accompanies this 8 Report and Recommendation. 9 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 10 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 11 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 12 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 13 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 14 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be

15 ready for consideration by the District Judge on March 10, 2026. 16 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Report and Recommendation to the parties 17 and to the Honorable Tiffany M. Cartwright. 18 19 Dated this 17th day of February, 2026. 20 A 21 22 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 23 24