John Demos v. Eric Holder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999151651-2]; denying for certificate of appealability, Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03715-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999221837]. Mailed to: John Demos. [13-6516]

Appeal: 13-6516

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6516

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC H. HOLDER; U.S.
INTERIOR; U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

SECRETARY

OF

THE

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03715-CCB)

Submitted:

October 8, 2013

Decided:

October 21, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Demos, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6516

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/21/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
John Demos, a Washington state prisoner, filed a 28
U.S.C.
state

§ 2241

(2006)

petition,

convictions.

The

seeking

district

relief

court

from

dismissed

his

the

1978

action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006) because Demos, a “three
striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), failed
to demonstrate

that

physical injury.
While

he

was

under

imminent

danger

of

serious

Demos appeals.
dismissal

under

§ 1915(g)

was

improper,

see

Smith v. Angelone, 112 F.3d 1126, 1130 (4th Cir. 1997) (“the in
forma pauperis filing fee provisions of the PLRA do not apply to
habeas corpus actions”), we find it unnecessary to remand to the
district court for further proceedings.

It is indisputable that

venue in the District of Maryland was improper; rather, venue
lay in a federal district court in the State of Washington.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (2006).
district

court

would

not

See

Further, transfer to the proper
be

in

the

interest

of

justice.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a
certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED
2