John Robert Demos v. Robert Jackson, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, CASE NO. C25-6065 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. ROBERT JACKSON, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 3, recommending the Court deny pro se plaintiff John Demos’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 1, and dismiss the case without prejudice and without leave to amend. Demos is a serial, vexatious litigant, subject to a Bar Order in this District since 1992. Demos’s most recent complaint contends that the state prison system is “guilty of tyranny.” Dkt. 1-1 at 4.

19 The R&R concludes that Demos has already filed three proposed complaints this year, and has failed to plausibly allege that he is imminent danger or to otherwise state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. 3.

1 A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition to which a party has properly objected. It must modify or set aside any portion of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

7 “[I]n providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, when a district court adopts a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court is required to merely “indicate[] that it reviewed the record de novo, found no merit to . . . [the] objections, and summarily adopt[s] the magistrate judge’s analysis in [the] report and recommendation.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023).

15 In so doing, district courts are “not obligated to explicitly address [the] objections.” Id. at 437.

17 A court should “deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”

19 Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if “it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact.” Tripati, 821 F.2d at 1370 (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984).

3 Demos has not filed a document titled “objections,” but he did file a 35-page “motion for emergency review.” Dkt. 5. It is largely indecipherable. It states as its grounds that “extraordinary, profound, vexatious, constitutional, special, novel, recurring mandatory, jurisdictional, gatekeeping, stopgap, and outstanding issues are before the Court.” Id. at 1.

8 Demos has not stated a plausible claim and he is barred from litigating these sorts of facially-without-merit claims in this District. The R&R is ADOPTED. Demos’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend.

12 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated this 16th day of December, 2025.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United S tates District Judge