Demos v. U.S.A. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
John Robert Demos, Jr., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER OF DISMISSAL
)
vs. 	)
)
The United States, et. al., 	) 	Case No. 1:19-cv-020
)
Defendants. 	)
On February 4, 2019, the plaintiff, John Robert Demos, Jr. (“Demos”) filed the following:
(1) a “Motion for Relief from the 1-23-2019 Directive of the Clerk of Court;” (2) a “Motion for
Review of a Constitutional Issue;” (3) a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; and (4) a
motion for appointment of counsel. On February 19, 2019, he filed notice of his consent to the
magistrate’ judge’s exercise of jurisdiction and motion to amend the pleadings. 	For the reasons
set forth below, the “Motion for Relief for the 1-23-2019 Directive of the Clerk of Court” is
deemed moot, the motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
are denied, and the above-entitled action is dismissed without prejudice.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Demos is incarcerated in the Monroe Correctional Complex in Monroe, Washington. He
initiated the above-entitled action on January 23, 2019, with the submission of a “PLRA packet.”
The “PLRA packet” contained a “Motion and Petition for Review of a Constitutional Crisis” in
which Demos asserted: (1) the United States Constitution discriminates on the basis of gender by
virtue of the fact that it is devoid of any female pronouns; (2) Article III of the United States
Constitution is “impermissibly and unconstitutionally vague;” (3) Article III and the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution “conflict and clash;” and (4) sections of Article I
Case 1:19-cv-00020-CRH Document 11 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 5

2
and III of the United States Constitution “are unconstitutionally and impermissibly vague as to the
types of punishment that can be imposed if peached and convicted, and if one is convicted of
treason.” (Doc. No. 5).
On January 23, 2019, the Clerk’s office sent a request to Demos to complete his “PLRA
packet” as the one he had submitted was missing, amongst other things, requests for waivers of
service of summonses and either the civil filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
On February 4, 2019, Demos filed a “Motion for Review of a Constitutional Issue,” a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and motion for court-appointed counsel. He also
filed a “Motion for Relief from the 1-23-2019 Directive of the Clerk of Court.” That same day the
Clerk’s office filed Demos’ “PLRA packet.”
On February 19, 2019, Demos filed notice of his consent to the magistrate judge’s exercise
of jurisdiction. He also filed a “Motion to Amend the Complaint.”
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	“Motion for Relief from the 1-23-2019 Directive of the Clerk of Court”
The motion for relief from the Clerk of Court’s directive (Doc. No. 2) to complete the
“PLRA packet” is deemed MOOT as the Clerk’s office has filed Demos’ “PLRA packet.” Demos’
motion for court-appointed counsel is denied.
B. 	Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Indigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel
let alone the appointment of their choice of counsel. 	Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.
2013). The court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel” and
has considerable discretion when deciding whether to do so. Id. at 924-43 (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
Case 1:19-cv-00020-CRH Document 11 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 5

3
1915(e)(1)). 	Several factors are relevant when deciding whether to appoint counsel, including
“the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent to investigate the facts, the existence
of conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent to present his claim and the complexity of the
legal issues.” Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991). Appointment of counsel
should be given serious consideration if the plaintiff has not alleged a frivolous or malicious claim.
Id.
Having reviewed the record while keeping in mind the factors identified by the Eighth
Circuit in Abdullah, I find that appointment of counsel is not warranted as Demos’ claims that the
United States Constitution is discriminatory and otherwise unconstitutional are nonsensical.
C. 	Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 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....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who has three or more such
dismissals may be excused from this rule only if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” Id
Demos is a renowned abusive litigant. See Demos v. United States Attorney General, et.
al., No. MC10-54, 2010 WL 1980310 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (“[Demos] is under pre-filing bar orders
in a number of courts, including this Court, the Eastern District of Washington, the Washington
State courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.”). A
cursory review of the online resources available has revealed that Demos has filed dozens of civil
actions in federal courts throughout the United States that were dismissed as frivolous or for failure
Case 1:19-cv-00020-CRH Document 11 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 5

4
to state a claim. See id.; see also Demos v. Doe, 2006 WL 891447 (D.N.J. 2006) (citing
approximately twenty-seven cases in which district courts dismissed Demos’ complaints as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim); Demos v. John Doe, et. al., 118 F.Supp. 2d 172, 173 (D.
Conn. 2000) (“Given plaintiff's propensity to file frivolous litigation in courts across this country,
it is not difficult to find at least ‘three strikes’ including, but not limited to Demos v. Greenspan,
Slip Opinion, 96-CV1826 (Aug. 5, 1996) (D.D.C.); Demos v. John Doe, et. al., Slip Opinion,
3:94CV2719 (Dec. 19, 1994) (N.D. Tex); Demos v. Shalala, 1994 WL 238840 (D.D.C.1994);
Demos v. United States, 927 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1991); Demos v. Browning, 943 F.2d 55 (9th Cir.
1991); Demos v. Crossland, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1992); Demos v. Time Magazine, 977 F.2d
588 (9th Cir.1992); Demos v. Kincheloe, 563 F.Supp. 30, 31 (E.D. Wa. 1982); Demos v. United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, 925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991).”).
Thus, Demos has accumulated “three strikes” for PLRA purposes.
Demos submissions are devoid of any plausible allegation that he is in any imminent
danger of serious physical injury. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED
pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The court
need not address Demos’ “Motion for Review of Constitutional Issue” and “Motion to Amend the
Complaint.”
III. 	CONCLUSION
Demos’ “Motion for Relief from the 1-23-2019 Directive of the Clerk of Court” (Doc. No.
2) is deemed MOOT. Demos’ motion for court appointed counsel (Doc. No. 4) and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 6) are DENIED. 	This matter is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
Case 1:19-cv-00020-CRH Document 11 Filed 02/21/19 Page 4 of 5

5
Dated this 21st day of February, 2019.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:19-cv-00020-CRH Document 11 Filed 02/21/19 Page 5 of 5