Demos v. Washington State Supreme Court

Filing 4

ORDER ADOPTING 2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, by Judge Tana Lin. The petitioner's 3 Objections are OVERRULED. The Clerk shall administratively CLOSE this matter. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(John Demos, Prisoner ID: 287455)(ST)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., 12 13 14 v. Plaintiff(s), CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05343-TL ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT, Defendant(s). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable S. Kate Vaughan, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 2) and Petitioner John Robert Demos, Jr.’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 3). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s objections, and the remaining record, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, OVERRULES the objections, and DISMISSES the Petition. A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (the Court “must determine de novo any part of the ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1 1 magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “The district judge may 2 accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the 3 matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1). A party properly objects when the party files “specific written objections” to the 5 report and recommendation as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). 6 Mr. Demos objects to the Report and Recommendation on the sole ground that the bar 7 order prohibiting him from seeking an extraordinary writ in this district without payment of the 8 filing fee does not apply to this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 9 No. 3 at 1). The order in question specifically bars Mr. Demos from filing petitions for relief 10 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254. See Demos v. Stanley, MC97-0031-JLW (W.D. Wash. 11 Mar. 13, 1997). The order does not specifically include relief under § 2241 because Mr. Demos 12 is a Washington state prisoner and cannot seek relief from his original conviction under that 13 statute. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(c). The Court understands the order to prohibit Mr. Demos from 14 seeking any extraordinary writs in this district based on his original conviction in Washington 15 state court. As noted by Judge Vaughan in the report and recommendation, the petition at bar 16 seeks such an extraordinary writ and was filed without payment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2 17 at 1-2, n.1. 18 The Court therefore ORDERS: 19 1. Mr. Demos’ objection is OVERRULED; 20 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 21 3. The Clerk shall administratively CLOSE this matter. 22 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2 1 Dated this 29th day of July 2022. 2 A 3 Tana Lin United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3

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?