Demos v. Holbrook ( 2021 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JOHN R. DEMOS JR., CASE NO. C21-1005-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 DONALD R. HOLBROOK, 13 Respondent. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner John Demos’s Objections (Dkt. No. 4) 16 to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 3) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, 17 United States Magistrate Judge, recommending dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Demos’s federal 18 habeas corpus petition (Dkt. No. 1-1). Having thoroughly considered Mr. Demos’s objection and 19 the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES the objection, ADOPTS the R&R, and 20 DISMISSES the petition with prejudice, for the reasons explained below. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Mr. Demos has filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 23 (Dkt. No. 1-1.) However, as Judge Fricke notes, several courts—including this one—have issued 24 multiple orders that bar Mr. Demos from filing in forma pauperis actions. (See Dkt. No. 3 at 1–2 25 (citing cases).) 26 Judge Fricke further notes that, even if Mr. Demos paid the filing fee, his petition— 1 which depends largely on his assertion that indicting him on a prosecutor’s criminal information 2 rather than via grand jury violated the Constitution—would still be dismissed because “it has 3 long been settled that there is no denial of Constitutional rights involved in the substitution of the 4 prosecuting attorney’s information for the grand jury’s indictment.” (Id. at 3 (citing Hurtado v. 5 California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)).) 6 Mr. Demos timely filed an objection to the R&R, and a document styled as an 7 “addendum” to the objection. (Dkt. Nos. 4–5.) He also filed a “second addendum,” which is 8 untimely. (See Dkt. Nos. 3, 6.) 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R that a party 11 properly objects to. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party does this by timely 12 filing “specific written objections.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because this requires specific 13 objections, general objections or repeating prior arguments is tantamount to no objection at all. 14 Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also 15 Garvey v. Uttecht, 2020 WL 5946157, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2020). Considering 16 insufficiently specific objections would essentially involve de novo review of the whole report, 17 defeating the purpose of referring matters to the magistrate judge, causing a duplication of time 18 and effort, and wasting judicial resources. Id. Thus, de novo review is not required when a party 19 fails to direct the court to a specific error in the report and recommendation. Strawbridge v. 20 Sugar Mountain Resort, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 472, 475 (W.D.N.C. 2003); see also Djelassi v. 21 ICE Field Office Director, 434 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (district courts only 22 review de novo “those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written 23 objection is made”). 24 While pro se litigants are held to a more lenient standard, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 25 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), that does not excuse them from making proper objections, see, e.g., Carter v. 26 Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, he is expected to abide 1 by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). 2 Mr. Demos’s objection (and both addenda) fall short of the requirements of a valid 3 objection. His arguments are all but incomprehensible; he fails to identify any specific issues in 4 the R&R requiring correction; and he cites nothing to warrant second-guessing Judge Fricke’s 5 advisement that he has exceeded his limit of three IFP petitions per year. (See generally Dkt. 6 Nos. 5–6); see also In re Demos, C91-0269-CRD, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 1992) (“Dft is limited 7 to three IFP applications per calendar year.”). This alone is sufficient to warrant overruling his 8 objections. 9 Judge Fricke is also correct that Hurtado v. California recognizes that States need not use 10 grand juries to bring criminal charges, even for serious crimes. See 110 U.S. 516, 538 (1884). 11 Moreover, grand juries in Washington State criminal proceedings, though authorized by statute, 12 are not mandatory and are rarely utilized in practice. See Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 545 13 (1962) (discussing the history of grand juries in Washington State and explaining that “[e]ver 14 since Hurtado . . . , this Court has consistently held that there is no federal constitutional 15 impediment to dispensing entirely with the grand jury in state prosecutions”). 16 Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Demos’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 5–6), 17 ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 3), and DISMISSES Mr. Demos’s petition with prejudice. 18 19 DATED this 16th day of December 2021. A 20 21 22 John C. Coughenour 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26