Demos v. Musk et al

Filing 18

ORDER OF DISMISSAL by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. The Court finds as follows: (1) Plaintiffs #10 Motion to Supplement the Record with a Memorandum to the United States Supreme Court is GRANTED. The document shall remain in the Courts file, but Plaintiff is advised that this filing will not bring the Memorandum or the arguments contained therein before the Supreme Court. Similarly, Plaintiffs petition for a #17 Writ of Mandamus from the Ninth Circuit will remain in the Courts file but is not thereby transmitted to or before the Court of Appeals. (2) Plaintiff requests that unidentified Department of Corrections staff be held in contempt of Court for failure to provide plaintiff with legal envelopes and that the Court quash or otherwise invalidate infraction reports he receive in October 2024. The #11 , #16 Motions, are DENIED. (3) Plaintiffs #12 Motion to Certify a purported constitutional question regarding antitrust violations and/or unfair methods of competition to the United States Supreme Court, is DENIED, as are the attached requests that the undersigned consider the merits of his Complaint or otherwise allow his claims to proceed. (4) Plaintiffs #14 Objections to the Report and Recommendation are overruled. (5) Plaintiffs new #15 imminent danger assertions are unavailing. That plaintiff, like the rest of the population, faces some risk of contracting COVID-19 does not establish an imminent danger of serious physical injury. (6) The Court adopts the #9 Amended Report and Recommendation. (7) Plaintiffs proposed #1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, his IFP application is DENIED, and this case is closed.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(John Demos, Prisoner ID: 287455)(MIH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,
CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01581-RSL

9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11

ELON MUSK, et al.,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on the “Amended Report and
Recommendation” of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge.
Dkt. # 9. Judge Christel recommends that plaintiff’s proposed complaint be dismissed
without prejudice and that his in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application be denied because
plaintiff failed to submit the affidavit required by a 1992 Bar Order, he has not shown
imminent danger of serious physical injury as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and his
claims are patently frivolous. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation,
plaintiff’s various responses thereto (Dkt. # 10-17), the 1992 Bar Order, and the remainder
of the record, the Court finds as follows:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record with a memorandum to the

United States Supreme Court, Dkt. # 10, is GRANTED. The document shall remain in the
Court’s file, but plaintiff is advised that this filing will not bring the memorandum or the

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

arguments contained therein before the Supreme Court. Similarly, plaintiff’s petition for a
writ of mandamus from the Ninth Circuit, Dkt. # 17, will remain in the Court’s file but is
not thereby transmitted to or before the Court of Appeals.
(2)

Plaintiff requests that unidentified Department of Corrections staff be held in

contempt of Court for failure to provide plaintiff with legal envelopes and that the Court
quash or otherwise invalidate infraction reports he receive in October 2024. The motions,
Dkt. # 11 and # 16, are DENIED.
(3)

Plaintiff’s motion to certify a purported constitutional question regarding

antitrust violations and/or unfair methods of competition to the United States Supreme
Court, Dkt. # 12, is DENIED, as are the attached requests that the undersigned consider the
merits of his complaint or otherwise allow his claims to proceed.
(4)

Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. # 14, are

overruled.
(5)

Plaintiff’s new imminent danger assertions, Dkt. # 15, are unavailing. That

plaintiff, like the rest of the population, faces some risk of contracting COVID-19 does not
establish an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
(6)

The Court adopts the Amended Report and Recommendation.

(7)

Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, his IFP

application is DENIED, and this case is closed.
(8)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Judge

Christel.

22
23

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2024.

24
25

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

26
ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2