Demos v. Trump

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD JOHN TRUMP,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:24-cv-00016-SLG
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On January 9, 2024, self-represented prisoner John Robert Demos
(“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint and a motion to proceed without prepaying the
filing fee.1 With the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed copies of court documents and
correspondence related to cases in other courts.2
The Court takes judicial notice3 that Plaintiff is under pre-filing bar orders in
a number of courts, including both the Eastern and Western Districts of
Washington, the Washington State Courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and
1 Docket 1.
2 See Docket 1-1.
3 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); See also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria
Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“we may take notice of
proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those
proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Case 3:24-cv-00016-SLG Document 3 Filed 01/25/24 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:24-cv-00016-SLG, Demos v. Trump
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 3
the United States Supreme Court.4 Furthermore, because Plaintiff has previously
accumulated more than the three “strikes”5 permitted by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act,6 Plaintiff must demonstrate “imminent danger of serious physical
injury” to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.7 Prisoners qualify for the
imminent danger exception based on the alleged conditions at the time the
complaint is filed, that the imminent danger is ongoing, and both fairly traceable to
unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint and redressable by a federal court.8
The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds Plaintiff has not made a
specific or credible allegation of facts to show he faced imminent danger of serious
physical injury when the Complaint was filed. Ordinarily, the Court would provide
Plaintiff 30 days to pay the full filing fee. However, upon review, the Complaint fails
to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted. Further, Plaintiff has
not provided any reason why he believes the U.S. District Court for the District of
4 See Demos v. Barker, Case No. C22-1706 JLR-TLF, 2022 WL 18109319, at *1 (W.D. Wash.
2022), report and recommendation adopted as modified, Case No. C22-1706JLR, 2023 WL
34548 (W.D. Wash. 2023).
5 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that self-represented prisoners receive a “strike” if
the case is dismissed “as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who receives more than three actions or
appeals in any federal court in the United States is prohibited from bringing any other actions
without prepayment of fees unless the prisoner can demonstrate that he or she is in “imminent
danger of serious physical injury.”
6 Demos v. D.C., Case No. 2:23-CV-00768-TL-GJL, 2023 WL 4238328, at *1 (W.D. Wash.
2023), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Demos v. United States, Case No. 2:23-
CV-00768-TL, 2023 WL 4235571 (W.D. Wash. 2023).
7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2007)
(addressing imminent danger exception for the first time in the Ninth Circuit).
8 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 699-700 (9th Cir. 2022).
Case 3:24-cv-00016-SLG Document 3 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:24-cv-00016-SLG, Demos v. Trump
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 3
Alaska has jurisdiction9 over Plaintiff’s allegations or could be considered a proper
venue.10 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Stafford Creek Correctional
Center, a Washington State Department of Corrections state prison located in
Aberdeen, Washington.11 Defendant Donald Trump’s primary residence is Mar-a-
Lago in Florida.12 None of the alleged events giving rise to this action seem to
have occurred in the State of Alaska. The Court finds that permitting amendment
would be futile.13
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgement.
DATED this 25th day of January, 2024.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).
10 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
11 Docket 1 at 2.
12 Docket 1 at 3.
13 Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); Chaset v.
Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (denial of leave to amend is not
an abuse of discretion if the “basic flaw” in the underlying facts cannot be cured by amendment).
Case 3:24-cv-00016-SLG Document 3 Filed 01/25/24 Page 3 of 3