Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04161/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04161-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

1

CLD-094 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4161

___________

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., Appellant

v.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

THE HON. GEORGE W. BUSH;

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the District Court

for the District of the Virgin Islands

(D.C. Civ. No. 08-cv-00010)

District Judge: Honorable Raymond L. Finch

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 14, 2010

Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 17, 2010 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

On January 29, 2008, John R. Demos, Jr., an inmate in the State of Washington,

filed in the District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands a pleading titled “writ of

Case: 09-4161 Document: 003110023188 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010
 We note that Demos is a litigant with “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 1

To the extent that he filed the present suit under “28 U.S.C. § 1651” in a thinly veiled

attempt to evade the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the District Court

should have required Demos either to pay the filing fee for a civil action in full, or to

demonstrate “imminent danger of serious physical injury” within the meaning of

§ 1915(g) if he wished to proceed in forma pauperis.

2

quo warranto, or in the alternative, a civil claim against the President of the United States

of America,” purportedly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Although his pleading is largely

illegible, Demos appears to claim, among other things, that then-President George W.

Bush engaged in “employer discrimination” by failing to hire Demos “for the job of U.S.

Secretary of State.” Pleading at 9.

On September 23, 2009, the District Court entered an order dismissing the matter

for failure to prosecute because Demos had neither served the defendants nor sought

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Demos timely filed this appeal. 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will summarily affirm

because the appeal presents “no substantial question.” 3d Cir. IOP Ch. 10.6.

The record reflects that Demos neither paid the fees nor submitted a motion in the

District Court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. His suit was thus properly

dismissed on that basis alone. The filing fee issue aside, Federal Rule of Civil 1

Procedure 4(m) provides that if service is not made within 120 days after the complaint is

filed, the court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order

that service be made within a specified time.” Id. Although Demos asserts on appeal

Case: 09-4161 Document: 003110023188 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010
3

that he served the complaint, see “Petitioner’s Rebuttal” at 2, there is no record evidence

to support that assertion. Under Rule 4(l), “[u]nless service is waived, proof of service

must be made to the court.... [P]roof must be made by the server’s affidavit.” Demos did

not demonstrate proper service.

For these reasons, we will affirm the order dismissing this matter for failure to

prosecute. 

Case: 09-4161 Document: 003110023188 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2010