1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS,

 Petitioner,

 v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-13965

 HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent,

__________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915g AND

ENJOINING PETITIONER FROM FILING FUTURE COMPLAINTS WITHOUT

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's pro se “petition for breach of

contract.” Petitioner is a prisoner who is currently incarcerated at the Stafford

Creek Correctional Facility in Aberdeen, Washington. Upon review of petitioner’s

case and his litigation history in the federal courts, this Court concludes that the

complaint must be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

This Court further orders that because of petitioner’s history of unsubstantiated

and vexatious litigation, petitioner shall be enjoined from filing any additional

complaints in forma pauperis in this district without leave of court. 

I. Background

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) provides that “[t]he clerk of each district court
2

shall require the parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such

court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee of

$350 ....” See also Owens v. Keeling, 461 F. 3d 763, 773 (6th Cir. 2006). 

Petitioner failed to provide the $350.00 filing fee when he filed his petition for

breach of contract. The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) states

that “if a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the

prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(b)(1)(as amended). See also In Re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F. 3d

1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),

does provide prisoners the opportunity to make a “downpayment” of a partial filing

fee and pay the remainder in installments. See Miller v. Campbell, 108 F. Supp.

2d 960, 962 (W.D. Tenn. 2000). Because petitioner has not submitted the

necessary $350.00 filing fee for a civil action, the Court will also construe his

complaint as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See State Treasurer v.

Garrison, No. 2008 WL 2831241, * 1 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2008).

Petitioner has a lengthy history of vexatious litigation in the federal courts. 

In 1982, a federal district judge dismissed seventeen section 1983 complaints

and three habeas corpus petitions filed by petitioner. At that time, petitioner had

filed 184 separate actions in that court. See Demos v. Kincheloe, 563 F. Supp.

30, 31 (E.D. Wash. 1982).

Since that time, petitioner’s continued filing of frivolous and vexatious
3

actions has resulted in various courts placing additional judicially imposed

limitations on his ability to file cases and appeals in those courts. See e.g.,

Demos v. Storrie, 507 U.S. 290 (1993)(Supreme Court directed Supreme Court

Clerk to reject all future petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters unless

plaintiff pays docketing fee); Demos v. Shalala, No. 1994 WL 238840 (D.D.C.

1994)(requiring leave of the court before filing any new civil action and

certification that complaint raises new issues); Demos v. United States District

Court for Eastern District of Washington, et al., 925 F.2d 1160-61 (9th Cir. 1991)

(petitioner barred from filing any new petitions seeking extraordinary writs

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254 in either the United States District

Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington, in light of his history

of abusing his in forma pauperis status).

In 2000, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

dismissed a complaint filed by petitioner in that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g) on the ground that petitioner had more than three prior civil rights

complaints which had been dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Demos v. John Doe, 118 F.

Supp. 2d 172, 174 (D. Conn. 2000). Likewise, in 2003, Judge Marianne O.

Battani of this district dismissed a complaint filed by petitioner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Demos v. Stabenow, U.S.D.C. No. 03-CV-60222-AA (E.D.

Mich. November 12, 2003). Most recently, the United States District Court for the
4

District of Vermont dismissed the identical “Petition for Breach of Contract” claim

brought by petitioner in this current action pursuant to § 1915(g). Demos v. U.S.,

No. 2008 WL 4200091 (D. Vt. September 11, 2008). 

II. Discussion

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), Pub.L.No. 104-

134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996), a federal court may dismiss a case if, on 3

or more previous occasions, a federal court dismissed the incarcerated plaintiff's

action because it was frivolous or malicious or failed to state a claim for which

relief may be granted. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (1996); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter,

175 F. 3d 378, 400 (6th Cir. 1999); Witzke v. Hiller, 966 F. Supp. 538, 540 (E.D.

Mich. 1997)(Gadola, J.). The three strikes provision of the PLRA prohibits a

prisoner, who has had three prior suits dismissed for being frivolous, from

proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil rights suit absent an allegation that the

prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. McFadden v. Parpan, 16

F. Supp. 2d 246, 247 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). A federal district court may sua sponte

raise the three strikes provision of the PLRA on its own initiative. Witzke, 966 F.

Supp. at 539; McFadden, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 247. Moreover, the federal courts in

general, and this Court in particular, can take judicial notice of a plaintiff’s prior

dismissals for purposes of § 1915(g). Green v. Nottingham, 90 F. 3d 415, 418

(10th Cir. 1996); Anderson v. Sundquist, 1 F. Supp. 2d 828, 830 (W.D. Tenn.

1998). 
5

In the present case, petitioner has numerous prior civil complaints which

were dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted. More importantly, petitioner has been advised by

several district courts, including a judge in this district, that he was precluded from

proceeding in forma pauperis in another civil rights action pursuant to § 1915(g)

because of these prior dismissals. As the Seventh Circuit has noted: “An effort to

bamboozle the court by seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis after a

federal judge has held that § 1915(g) applies to a particular litigant will lead to

immediate termination of the suit.” Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F. 3d 857, 859 (7th Cir.

1999). Petitioner has also been enjoined by numerous courts from filing various

civil actions, because of his lengthy history of abusive litigation.

In this case, petitioner has committed what is tantamount to a fraud upon

this Court by implicitly requesting in forma pauperis status without revealing that

other judges, including another judge in this district, have previously precluded

him from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(g). See Fields v.

Gilmore, 145 F. Supp. 2d 961, 963 (C.D. Ill. 2001); Garrison, No. 2008 WL

2831241, Slip. Op. at * 2. 

Moreover, petitioner has not alleged any facts which would establish that

he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, and thus, he does not come

within the exception to the mandate of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g), which prohibits him

from proceeding in forma pauperis in light of his numerous prior frivolity
6

dismissals. Mulazim v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 28 Fed. Appx. 470, 472 (6th

Cir. 2002). Petitioner’s claim that his ancestors were kidnapped from Africa and

placed into slavery without consenting to becoming United States citizens does

not fall within the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(g). See Demos

v. U.S., No. 2008 WL 4200091, Slip. Op. at * 1. Petitioner’s complaint is

therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to § 1915(g). 

Since petitioner has had numerous prior cases dismissed against him for

being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim, 1915(g) bars him from

appealing in forma pauperis. See Drummer v. Luttrell, 75 F. Supp. 2d 796, 805-

806 (W.D. Tenn. 1999); Garrison, No. 2008 WL 2831241, Slip. Op. at * 3. 

The Court therefore refuses to certify that any appeal from this dismissal would

be in good faith.

Finally, because petitioner’s “history of unsubstantiated and vexatious

litigation amounts to continued abuse of his in forma pauperis status”, petitioner

shall be enjoined from filing any additional in forma pauperis lawsuits in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan without leave of

the court. See Edwards v. Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 756-57 (E.D. Mich. 2006).

In order to obtain permission to file an action in this Court, any new complaint or

petition filed by petitioner must be accompanied by:

(1) an application for permission to file the pleading; and

(2) an affidavit demonstrating that plaintiff’s allegations have merit

and that they are not a repetition of plaintiff’s previous complaints or
7

petitions.

Id.

III. ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s in forma pauperis status is

DENIED and the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall be enjoined from filing any

additional complaints in forma pauperis in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan without leave of the court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND CERTIFIED that any appeal taken by

Petitioner would not be done in good faith.

Dated: September 24, 2008

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 24, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk