FILED Clerk District Court MAR 18 2025 for the Northern. Mariana Islands 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Deputy □□□□□□ 4 FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ° JOHN ROBERT DEMOS JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-00017 6 Petitioner, v. ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S 8 || WASHINGTON TERRITORY, STATE OF MOTION TO FILE A SECOND OR A WASHINGTON, THE LONDON COMPANY, SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS 9 || THE ROYAL AFRICAN COMPANY, and PETITION OR IN THE THE NORTHWEST COMPANY, ALTERNATIVE A WRIT OF 10 MANDAMUS 11 Respondents. 12 +3 Before the Court is petitioner John Robert Demos, Jr.’s Motion to File a Second or a 14 Successive Habeas Corpus Petition or in the Alternative a Writ of Mandamus. (ECF No. 1.) 15 Demos is incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary on 1978 convictions for attempted 16 first-degree rape and first-degree burglary. (App. 36, ECF No. 1-1). He attached to his Motion

1g || an Appendix consisting of letters and orders from different courts including: the U.S. Supreme 19 || Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, legal aid clinics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 20 |! District of Columbia, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, and other local courts in Washington. (See generally id.) The documents contained in the Appendix largely consist of 22 courts and entities denying Demos review of his petitions, filings, or assistance. (/d.) 23 Demos titled his petition as a motion to the court to file a second habeas corpus petition 24 |[O requesting a writ of mandamus. (Mot. 1.) However, Demos’s alleged facts do not support a

26 27 28

1 habeas or writ of mandamus motion.1 Rather, Demos states in his pleading that both the lower 2 U.S. district courts and the Supreme Court of Washington have issued bar orders and injunctions 3 that block, impede, and curtail Demos’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances 4 under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Id. at 7.) Demos further asserts that his 5 right to access the courts cannot be “gainsayed, stifled, impeded, or bargained away,” and that 6 his right of free speech cannot be impeded. (Id.) 7 8 Demos is a Washington state prisoner who has submitted neither the civil filing fee for 9 commencing this action nor an in forma pauperis application. Pursuant to

(g), 10 [i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more 11 prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an 12 action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 13 relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 14 After reviewing the orders filed in Demos’s many prior civil actions, the Court finds that 15 16 he has accrued three or more “prior occasions” in which his civil action or appeals were 17 dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim and has 18 notice of these three strikes. See, e.g., Demos v. Barker, Case No. C22-1706JLR,

19 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2023); Demos v. Wash. State Indeterminate Sentence Rev. Bd., Case No. 20 C22-5987-RSL-BAT,

(W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2022); Demos v. Wash. Dep’t 21 of Corr., Case No. C22-0724RSL,

(W.D. Wash. July 19, 2022); see also Ray 22 23 24 25 1 Even if the Court were to construe Demos’s motion as requesting to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition or writ of mandamus, this Court cannot grant such a request. Pursuant to

(b)(3)(A), 26 “[b]efore a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” The 27 Ninth Circuit has already denied Demos’s request to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition. (App. 27.) Additionally, it is unclear what Demos requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus for. If Demos is requesting 1 lly. Lara,

(9th Cir. 2022) (allowing a court to sua sponte raise § 1915(g)’s bar during screening and not require the court to provide additional process). Further, nothing in ° Demos’s filings suggest that he is or was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this action or that there is a continuing practice that injured him in the past that poses an “ongoing danger.” Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, 4 || Demos may not proceed in this action without concurrent payment of the civil filing fee. 8 Thus, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Demos filing a new action ° |! with concurrent payment of the filing fee. The Court will take no action on any documents filed herein that are not accompanied by the civil filing fee, beyond processing a notice of appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of March, 2025. 12 13 vw 15 Chief Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28