Demos v. The United States et al

Filing 4

DISMISSAL ORDER re 1 - Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 11/24/2014. "This action is DENIED as frivolous pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. It is also DI SMISSED for lack of jurisdiction for failure to name a proper respondent or bring the petition in the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 433 (2004); Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll.  7; 2254; Stanley v. California, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive el ectronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

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

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
_____________________________ )

CIV. NO. 14-00521 LEK/KSC
DISMISSAL ORDER

DISMISSAL ORDER
Petitioner is a Washington state prisoner challenging
his 1978 conviction for first degree burglary.

The court

construes the petition as brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner did not file an in forma pauperis application or pay
the filing fee.
Petitioner asserts his burglary conviction is
unconstitutional because he is a Knight of Malta, Knight Templar,
and member of Opus Dei.

Petitioner states that Pope Innocent II

granted the Knights Templar sovereignty in 1139, another unnamed
Pope granted sovereignty to the Knights of Malta in 1879, and
Pope John Paul II made Opus Dei a personal prelate whose members
answer only to the Pope.
Petitioner does not explain how his conviction or
sentence are in violation of the laws of the United States, or
why he filed this action in Hawaii, where he was neither

convicted nor is incarcerated.1

Even if this petition

challenging a 1978 Washington state conviction was timely and
brought in the proper forum against proper respondents,
Petitioner’s fanciful tale of Papal bulls and his membership in
religious orders as a basis for overturning his conviction or
sentence is frivolous on its face.
This action is DENIED as frivolous pursuant to Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Court.

It is also DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction

for failure to name a proper respondent or bring the petition in
the district of conviction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Rumsfeld v.

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 433 (2004); Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll.
§ 2254; Stanley v. California, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

Petitioner has filed hundreds of actions in the federal and
is under pre-filing review in the District of Washington, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court,
and the Washington state courts. See U.S. Party/Case Index,
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov; see also Demos v. Storrie, 507
U.S. 290, 291 (1993).
2

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 24, 2014.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

Demos v. United States, 1:14-cv-00521 LEK; Dismissal/psa/Habeas 2014/Demos 14-521 LEK
(dsm 2254); J:\PSA Draft Ords\LEK\Demos 14-521 lek (dsm 2254).wpd

3