Demos v. The C.I.A. et al
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 6/16/2015. (c/m 6/17/15)(ko, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JOHN R. DEMOS, #287-455
*
v.
*
The CIA, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. CCB-15-1582
*
*****
MEMORANDUM
On June 1, 2015, John R. Demos, an inmate incarcerated at the Washington State
Penitentiary in Walla Walla, Washington, filed the instant case naming “The C.I.A., The F.B.I.,
and The President of the U.S.A.” as defendants. ECF 1, p. 1. Demos alleges that the CIA was
complicit in the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Medgar Evers. ECF 1, p. 1.
Demos further alleges he is a former CIA operative whose duties were to destroy documents that
were requested by Congress or the FBI. Id., p. 3. He states that “The C.I.A. would kidnap a
person, then go to a funeral home and get a dead corpse, perform cosmetic facial surgery on the
corpse, and pass the corpse off as the body of the kidnapped person.” Id. The self –styled
“criminal complaint” does not specify what relief he seeks. ECF 1. Demos has neither paid the
civil filing fee nor filed a filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 2. Given
his incarceration and previous filings, he appears to be impoverished.
A prisoner is not allowed to bring a civil action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 1915
if he "has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an
action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). The
undersigned, who is familiar with Demos's previous civil filings, notes that since 1997, Demos
has had numerous cases dismissed as frivolous and at least two which were previously dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g).1 In the instant case, Demos does not allege nor in any way indicate
that he "is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." In light of the foregoing, the court
concludes the case shall be dismissed without prejudice.2
A separate Order follows.
June 16, 2015
Date
/S/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Court
1
See Demos v. Motellap, Civil Action No. MJG-00-698 (D. Md. 2000); Demos v. Doe, Civil Action No.
MJG-00-547 (D. Md. 2000); Demos v. Doe, Civil Action No. JG-00-1035 (E.D. Pa. 2000); Demos v. Scott Paper
Co., Civil Action No. JG-97-4109 (E.D.Pa. 1997); Demos v. Mikulski, Civil Action No. CCB-03-1730 (D. Md.
2003); Demos v. United States, Civil Action No. CCB-09-3205 (D. Md. 2009); Demos v. Washington State, Civil
Action No. CCB-10-006 (D. Md. 2010).
The foregoing is a small sampling of the cases filed by Demos which were sua sponte dismissed by the court.
The court notes that a review of PACER reveals that plaintiff has filed hundreds of cases throughout the country, the
bulk of which have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Washington. Staff at the United
States District Court for the District of Washington report that plaintiff is subject to a bar order, entered prior to the
adoption of the PLRA, wherein plaintiff=s cases are screened before they are accepted for filing.
2
Even if Demos paid the civil filing fee the complaint would be subject to dismissal as he has no legally
protected interest in the prosecution of others. The Supreme Court said in Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614,
619 (1973): “[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” See also Banks v. Buchanan, 336 Fed. App’x 122, 123 (3d Cir. 2009);
Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012)
aff’d, Civ. No. 12-5198, 2012 WL 6603088 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012), cert denied, ____ U.S. ____, 133 S. Ct. 1263
(2013); Speight v. Meehan, Civ. No. 08-3235, 2008 WL 5188784, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?