John Demos, Jr. v. State of Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00802-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999616703]. Mailed to: John Demos. [15-6064]

Appeal: 15-6064

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6064

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, The; WASHINGTON TERRITORY; UNITED
STATES, The; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The; WASHINGTON, D.C.,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00802-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

June 25, 2015

Decided:

July 8, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Demos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6064

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John Demos, a Washington state prisoner, filed a “Bill of
Review,”

claiming

that

his

1974

convictions were unconstitutional.

and

1978

Washington

state

The district court dismissed

the action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012)
because Demos, a “three striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA), failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.

Demos appeals.

Because the “Bill of Review” attacked Demos’ convictions as
unconstitutional, this action sounds in habeas corpus.

While

dismissal under § 1915(g) was improper, see Smith v. Angelone, 111
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 the district court was without

jurisdiction over the matter; rather, jurisdiction is proper in a
federal

district

court

in

Washington.

Further,

we

find

that

transfer to the proper district court would not be in the interest
of justice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-6064

Doc: 19

Filed: 07/08/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3