Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02081/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

See Dema v. Lin, CV-05-2561-SMM; Dema v. Mesa, CV-05-3435-EHC; State v.

Dema, CR-06-503-EHC; Dema v. Anderson, CV-06-2190-DGC; State v. Dema, CV-06-

3034-MHM; Dema v. Allied Towing, CV-07-100-NVW; Dema v. Staffmark Agency, CV-07-

216-ROS; Dema v. Arizona, CV-07-726-DGC; Dema v. Burley, CV-07-472-FJM; Dema v.

Snell & Wilmer, CV-07-473-DGC; Dema v. State, CV-07-2441-DGC; Dema v. Goddard,

CV-08-359-DGC; Dema v. State, CV-08-900-LOA.

2

See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

(search for “Victor Dema”). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor O. Dema, 

Plaintiff; and

Francisco J. Flores,

Real Party in Interest.

vs.

Allied Towing and Auto Sales Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2081-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Victor Dema has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to

change judge. Dkt. ##3-4. For reasons stated below, the Court will deny the motions.

A. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Plaintiff is not an inexperienced litigant. He has brought thirteen actions in this Court.

All have been dismissed.1

 He also has filed at least fifteen cases in Arizona state court.2

Case 2:08-cv-02081-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/09/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff filed a similar complaint against Defendant in January 2007. See Dema v.

Allied Towing, CV-07-100-NVW (Dkt. #1). That action was dismissed for failure to serve

process. See id. (Dkt. #13). 

- 2 -

The present complaint asserts various federal and state law claims based on

Defendant’s alleged unlawful seizure of a vehicle owned by Francisco Flores. Dkt. #1.3

Plaintiff purports to represent Mr. Flores in this action on the ground that Mr. Flores is

“a next of friend of the Plaintiff.” Dkt. #1 at 5. 

Plaintiff may not bring this action on behalf of Mr. Flores. Under Rule 17 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real

party in interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1). While there are several exceptions to this rule,

none of them applies to this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1)(A)-(F). Moreover, only

members of the bar of this Court may practice law in this District. LRCiv 83(b). Because

Plaintiff is neither a licensed attorney nor a member of the Court’s bar, he may not represent

Mr. Flores in this action. See Dema v. State, CV-08-900-LOA (Dkt. #7) (holding that

Plaintiff was prohibited from representing his minor children).

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on his own behalf, the Court will deny

the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. “‘[A] litigant whose filing fees and court costs are

assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from

filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31

(1992) (citation omitted). The Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay filing fees and court

costs is appropriate in light of his propensity for filing frivolous and repetitive lawsuits. See,

e.g., Dema v. Lin, CV-05-2561-SMM (Dkt. #3) (denying motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and noting that the complaint appeared frivolous for duplicating litigation in state

court); Dema v. Burley, CV-07-472-FJM (Dkt. #29) (denying motion to proceed in forma

pauperis on the ground that if Plaintiff chooses “to continue to abuse the system, he should

do so at his own expense”); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming

denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis where “the plaintiff was placing a great burden

Case 2:08-cv-02081-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/09/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

on the court by his several previous filings and attempted filings”); see also Smart v. Heinze,

347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a

right.”); Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963) (the privilege “is a matter

within the discretion of the trial court and in civil actions for damages should be allowed only

in exceptional circumstances”).

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied. If Plaintiff wishes to

litigate claims asserted on his own behalf, he shall pay the filing fee of $350.00 by

December 26, 2008. Plaintiff may not assert claims on behalf of Mr. Flores.

B. Motion to Change Judge.

Plaintiff asks the Court to recuse “on grounds of bias and prejudice within all previous

Plaintiff’s cases assigned to, and adjudicated by[,] the [Court].” Dkt. #4. Plaintiff cites no

legal authority in support of his request. See id.

Two statutes govern recusal of district judges: 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section

144 applies when a party to a proceeding believes that the district judge “has a personal bias

or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 144.

“Section 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient

affidavit.” United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Because Plaintiff has

submitted no affidavit, his request for recusal may not be granted under section 144.

Section 455 provides that a district judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding

“[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1).

The bias or prejudice generally “must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based

solely on information in the course of the proceedings.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d

1034, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1987). Other than generally referencing prior cases assigned to this

judge, Plaintiff has identified no reason for recusal. Moreover, none of the Court’s prior

rulings “display[s] a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Recusal is not appropriate

under section 455. The Court will deny the motion to change judge.

Case 2:08-cv-02081-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/09/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #3) is denied.

2. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $350.00 by December 26, 2008.

3. The Clerk is directed to enter dismissal of this action without further notice if

Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to change judge (Dkt. #4) is denied. 

DATED this 8th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-02081-DGC Document 5 Filed 12/09/08 Page 4 of 4