Demos v. United States of America et al

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file an answer or other response. It is further ordered that for future non-habeas civil actions filed by Petitioner in this court, Petitioner's order of pre-filing review, Demos, 8:03-cv-0382, ECF No. 5, is modified as follows: 1. The Clerk of Court is authorized to assign civil action numbers (for docket control purposes) and to authorize the assigned magistrate judge to direct Petitioner to pay the statutory filing fee and any administrative fee imposed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; 2. Should Petitioner fail to pay the full statutory filing fee in any such applicable civil actions, such actions shall be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/4/2015.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
John R. Demos, # 287455,
Petitioner,
v.
United States of America,
The C.I.A.,
The F.B.I.,
The President of the U.S.A.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:15-2360-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner filed a criminal complaint pro se against the United States of America, the
C.I.A., the F.B.I., and the President of the United States of America for the alleged criminal
destruction of records pertaining to persons responsible for the deaths of President Abraham
Lincoln, former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and guitarist Jimi Hendrix. (ECF No.
1). He claims that he acquired this information as a former document shredder for the C.I.A.,
and believes that all three were killed because they were threats to national security. Petitioner
calls his complaint a criminal complaint for the alleged destruction of the records. Because a suit
code does not exist for a lawsuit filed by a private citizen seeking criminal charges, the
complaint was designated as a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Petitioner’s petition be dismissed
without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file an answer or response; that
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) be denied; and that the

1

District Court modify the pre-filing injunction previously issued by this court to require payment
of the applicable filing fee in any future non-habeas civil action filed by Petitioner in the District
of South Carolina. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 12 at 7). Petitioner filed timely objections. (ECF No. 14).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court need
not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that
do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a
timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear
error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
As set forth above, the Report recommends (1) dismissing the petition without prejudice
and without requiring Respondents to file an answer or other response; (2) that Petitioner’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) be denied; and that the District Court
modify the pre-filing injunction to require payment of the applicable filing fee in any future nonhabeas actions filed by Petitioner in the District of South Carolina. Petitioner’s objections are
unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report, merely restate his claims, or are repetitive.
In his objections, Petitioner contends that the magistrate judge erred when she stated that
criminal prosecutions were brought for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. (ECF No. 14 at 2-

2

3). Petitioner claims that the persons prosecuted for this crime were scapegoats and “fall guys”
for “big money interests.” (ECF No. 14 at 3). As noted, these objections are non-specific to the
dispositive portions of the Report.
Petitioner, an inmate currently incarcerated in the State of Washington, is a frequent filer
of lawsuits around the country. He has filed numerous lawsuits in this court. As noted in a
previous order of this court, by 2003, he had filed over 200 lawsuits. Demos v. Governor of the
State of Wash., No. 8:03-3882 (ECF No. 4). The court issued a pre-filing injunction in that case.
Id. at ECF No. 5.
Therefore, after thoroughly reviewing the Report and Petitioner’s objections, the court
finds no reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the court
adopts the Report (ECF No. 12), and Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED
without prejudice and without requiring Respondents to file an answer or other response.
Further, Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. It
is further ordered that for future non-habeas civil actions filed by Petitioner in this court,
Petitioner’s order of pre-filing review, Demos, 8:03-cv-0382, ECF No. 5, is modified as follows:
1. The Clerk of Court is authorized to assign civil action numbers (for docket control
purposes) and to authorize the assigned magistrate judge to direct Petitioner to pay
the statutory filing fee and any administrative fee imposed by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts;
2. Should Petitioner fail to pay the full statutory filing fee in any such applicable civil
actions, such actions shall be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
August 4, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4