John Robert Demos v. The ISRB and State of Washington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA 11 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-5944-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION 14 The ISRB and STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants.

17 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 2) and Plaintiff John Robert Demos, Jr.’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 3). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the relevant record, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is a state prisoner and a prolific litigant who is under pre-filing bar orders in multiple courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, 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). One of those orders from the Western District of Washington provides that Plaintiff may submit only three applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and proposed actions each year. See In re John Robert Demos, No. MC91-269- CRD (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 1992) (“the 1992 Bar Order”); In re Complaints and Petitions Submitted by John Robert Demos (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 1982). At the time Plaintiff submitted his proposed complaint to the Court for filing, he had already exceeded his annual limit of IFP applications and proposed actions for the year 2025. See, e.g., Demos v. Trump, No. C25-5249 (W.D. Wash. 2025); Demos v. Ewing, No. C25-413 (W.D. Wash. 2025); Demos v. Ferguson, No. C25-5266 (W.D. Wash. 2025).

14 In addition, Plaintiff has had more than three prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. See Demos v. Lehman, No. MC99-113 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 1999). Therefore under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff also must demonstrate an “imminent danger of serious physical injury” to proceed IFP. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 18 F.3d 1047, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 2007).

19 II. DISCUSSION 20 A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[The Court] must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “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); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party properly objects when the party files “specific written objections” to the report and recommendation as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).

4 While Mr. Demos filed a timely objection, his only ground for his objection is that he challenges the constitutionality of the bar orders that have been entered against him. See Dkt. No. 3 at 1. However, the time for challenging the bar orders has long passed. See Demos v. U.S. Dist.

7 Ct. for E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Because Demos did not appeal from the standing orders, they have become final.”).

9 Here, the fact that Plaintiff has filed more than three cases this year precludes Plaintiff from proceeding with this action. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. However, this Court has previously found that the bar orders that limit Plaintiff to three IFP applications per year do not apply to subsequent applications if he plausibly pleads imminent danger and meets all other procedural requirements of the prior injunctions. Demos v. Jackson, No. C22-5480, 2022 WL 3227427, at *2 (W.D.

14 Wash. Aug. 10, 2022) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

15 The Report and Recommendation informed Plaintiff that his allegations of imminent danger “are too conclusory and speculative to establish imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Dkt. No. 2 at 3. In addition, while Plaintiff alleges an August 2025 assault at Airway Heights Corrections Center, at the time he filed this action, he had been transferred to (and is currently housed at) the Washington State Penitentiary. Id. Therefore, even if the Court accepted that Plaintiff might have been in danger at some point, he clearly was not in danger at the time he filed his complaint. Plaintiff’s objection neither addresses this at all nor asserts in any way that he is still in any imminent danger.

23 // // ] Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED: 2 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and OVERRULES Plaintiff's 3 objections.

4 2. Plaintiff's proposed in forma pauperis (“IFP”’) application (Dkt. No. 1) is 5 DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case.

8 Dated this 17th day of December 2025.

10 Tana Lin 4 United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION — 4