Demos v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., CASE NO. 22-CV-05266-LK Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke, Dkt. No. 2, and the objections thereto filed by pro se Plaintiff John Robert Demos, Jr., Dkt. No. 3. Mr. Demos is subject to a pre-filing bar order in this district.

20 Dkt. No. 2 at 1. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Mr. Demos’ objections, and remaining record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as set forth below.

22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff 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). Judge Fricke set forth the factual background and procedural history in her Report and Recommendation, and the Court will not repeat them here. See Dkt. No. 2 at 1–2. Mr. Demos, who is incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary, alleges that Governor Inslee has committed treason by colluding with China to expose prisoners at the Washington State Penitentiary to COVID-19. See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2; Dkt. No. 2 at 2. The Court reviews de novo only those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Mr. Demos has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

9 Mr. Demos contends that the Report and Recommendation infringes on his First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. Dkt. No. 3 at 2. He also argues that his right to petition the Government for redress has been violated because the Court has not ordered service on Defendants. Id. Beyond these conclusory assertions, Mr. Demos supplies no explanatory analysis or supporting discussion. Nor do his objections address the reasons why this matter is subject to dismissal. The Court therefore adopts the findings and conclusions from the Report and Recommendation: (1) Mr. Demos has not paid the filing fee and has surpassed his annual limit for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) applications; (2) Mr. Demos does not meet the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (3) Mr. Demos’ claims “are conclusory, speculative and do not appear to have any basis in law or fact.”

19 Dkt. No. 2 at 1–2.

20 III. CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 22 (1) the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 2; 23 (2) the Court DENIES Mr. Demos’ IFP application, Dkt. No. 1; and 24 (3) the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice.

1 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Mr. Demos at his last known address.

3 Dated this 28th day of June, 2022.

4 A 5 Lauren King United States District Judge