Demos v. The United States ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00104-BLW Petitioner, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER v. THE UNITED STATES and THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. This case was reassigned to this Court for screening. Petitioner is a prisoner in the custody of the Washington Department of Correction. He filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on February 27, 2020. (Dkt. 3.) The Court agrees with the assessment of United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush that the Petition is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and as a frivolous filing. See, e.g., Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290, 290 (1993) (imposing sanction of not being able to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Supreme Court for having filed 48 in forma pauperis filings before 1988, and 14 such filings between 1988 and 1993); Demos v. United States, No. CV 19-00062 SOM-KJM, 2019 WL 475004, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 6, 2019), appeal dismissed, No. 19-15339, 2019 WL 2299255 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2019) (“To date, [Demos] has filed at least 920 civil actions or appeals. He is subject to prefiling review orders in the Western and Eastern Districts of Washington, the Washington state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.”). Petitioner asserts that he is a federal prisoner incarcerated in Washington state. Here, Petitioner attempts to challenge a 2015 judgment of conviction in a federal criminal case from “the United States District Court of Sacramento, California.” (Dkt. 3, p. 2.) He alternatively states he is under a Washington state conviction. (Id.) A court entertaining a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must have jurisdiction over the respondent. The proper respondent in a circumstance where the petitioner is in custody is the person who has the power to produce the petitioner/prisoner if a writ issues, see Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 438 (2004). Petitioner, who is in custody in Washington state, incarcerated on a California federal conviction and/or a Washington state conviction, has not provided a reason why jurisdiction in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho is appropriate. Because of Petitioner’s long history of frivolous filings, this case will be dismissed, rather than transferred to a California federal court. ORDER IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED. 3. The Court will not grant a Certificate of Appealability in this case. If Petitioner chooses to file a notice of appeal, the Clerk of Court is ordered to forward a copy of this Order, the record in this case, and Petitioner’s notice of appeal, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ze DATED: August 3, 2020 © Me allllb } OFT Damnnl fg «CB. Lynn Winmill Ricp ows US. District Court Judge INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3