Demos v. Law of the Sea Institute et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING CASE 3 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 8/23/11. ("The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and to close this case.") (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). John Robert Demos served by first class mail at the address of record on August 23, 2011.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAW OF THE SEA INSTITUTE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 11-00491 SOM/RLP
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND
DISMISSING CASE

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff John Robert Demos, a Washington state
prisoner, has submitted a prisoner civil rights complaint and an
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application.

Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant Law of the Sea Institute (“LOSI”)1 failed to use its
“power, prestig[]e, and influence to sway the outcome of
[Plaintiff’s] criminal trial in his favor,” thereby violating
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3.

In

his IFP application, Plaintiff clarifies that his suit involves a
“Breach of Contract.”
and compensation.

ECF No. 3.

Plaintiff seeks a new trial

Plaintiff concedes that LOSI is a private

entity, but alleges that it is subject to suit in federal court
under 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

1

LOSI has been affiliated with the University of
California, Berkeley, since 2002. See Berkeley Law, avail. at
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/1962.htm. LOSI describes itself as
“an international consortium of scholars that has played a major
part in studies of ocean law since the 1970s.” Id.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is well-known throughout the federal courts.
See PACER Case Locator, http://pcl.upsci.uscourts.gov.
he has filed 685 civil actions or appeals.

Id.

To date,

He is under pre-

filing review orders in the Western and Eastern Districts of
Washington, the Washington state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 291 (1993).

See, e.g.,

The United States

District Court for the Western District of Washington, the
district in which Plaintiff is incarcerated, has a standing order
providing for the return without filing of any petition that
Plaintiff files pursuant to §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254, unless the
submission is accompanied by a filing fee.

See Demos v. Weidman,

No. 2:11-CV-00274, Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 2, (W.D.
Wash., Feb. 9, 2011); adopted Mar. 21, 2011, ECF No. 5.
Additionally, Plaintiff is allowed to submit only three IFP
applications and proposed actions each year in that court.

Id.

On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed an identical case
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
naming the “National Judicial College” rather than LOSI as
Defendant.

See Demos v. Nat’l Judicial College, No. 3:11-cv-

00591 ECR (D. Nev., Aug. 11, 2011) (action dismissed Aug. 12,
2011, ECF No. 3).

2

II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s action is subject to dismissal for numerous
reasons.

First, Plaintiff’s allegations are not cognizable in a

civil rights action because they challenge the validity of his
conviction, and it is clear that his conviction and sentence have
not been invalidated.

See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-

487 (1994).
Second, Plaintiff does not explain why venue for this
action lies in Hawaii, when neither he nor Defendant resides or
is based in Hawaii, he was not convicted in Hawaii, and he is not
incarcerated in Hawaii.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28

U.S.C. §2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 433 (2004);
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497
(1973) (a state prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus may
be filed in the federal judicial district in which the petitioner
is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was
convicted and sentenced).
Third, the court cannot consider Plaintiff’s IFP
application because it is incomplete; it contains neither a
certification of funds by prison officials nor a copy of his
prison trust fund activity for the past six months.
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

See 28

Notably, Plaintiff does not allege that he

is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, a circumstance
that would allow him to avoid the prefiling orders issued by
courts.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (restricting suit in any

3

federal court by a person who, on three or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained, has had actions or appeals
dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted).
notice of

Plaintiff is clearly on

§ 1915(g)’s proscription on his filing of any

complaint in forma pauperis.

See Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113,

1116 (9th Cir. 2005) (allowing a court to consider court records
of previous dismissals and requiring notice to the prisoner of
these dismissals before denying IFP under § 1915(g)); see also,
Demos v. State of Washington, No. 1:09-cv-1000 (D. Ill., Jun. 23,
2010); Demos v. United States, No. 1:08-cv-11366 (D. Mass. Aug.
14, 2008); Demos v. Doe, No. 3:00-cv-00824 (S.D. Cal, Jul. 20,
2000).
Fourth, Plaintiff’s claims against LOSI are frivolous
on their face.

He provides no facts supporting his claims, and

his claims are incoherent.
Fifth, neither the Complaint nor the IFP application is
on a court-approved form, as required by local rule.

See

LR99.7.10(a) & (d).
III.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
In light of Plaintiff’s litigation history in this and many other
federal courts, and the insubstantial nature of his claims,
transfer of this action to the proper venue does not serve the
interests of justice.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

4

Plaintiff’s in

forma pauperis application is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and as incomplete.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

enter judgment and to close this case.

An appeal of this order

would be frivolous and, therefore, not taken in good faith.

See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 23, 2011.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Demos v. Law of the Sea Institute, Civ. No. 11-00491 SOM/RLP; Order Denying In
Forma Pauperis Application and Dismissing Case (psas/Screening/dmp/2011/Demos
11-491 SOM (dsm ftsc, friv, venue, 1915(g))

5