Filed: Jul. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6064 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, The; WASHINGTON TERRITORY; UNITED STATES, The; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The; WASHINGTON, D.C., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00802-REP-RCY) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: July 8, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6064 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, The; WASHINGTON TERRITORY; UNITED STATES, The; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The; WASHINGTON, D.C., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00802-REP-RCY) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: July 8, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6064
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, The; WASHINGTON TERRITORY; UNITED
STATES, The; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, The; WASHINGTON, D.C.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00802-REP-RCY)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: July 8, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Robert Demos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Demos, a Washington state prisoner, filed a “Bill of
Review,” claiming that his 1974 and 1978 Washington state
convictions were unconstitutional. The district court dismissed
the action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012)
because Demos, a “three striker” under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA), failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger
of serious physical injury. Demos appeals.
Because the “Bill of Review” attacked Demos’ convictions as
unconstitutional, this action sounds in habeas corpus. While
dismissal under § 1915(g) was improper, see Smith v. Angelone,
111
F.3d 1126, 1130 (4th Cir. 1997) (“the in forma pauperis filing fee
provisions of the PLRA do not apply to habeas corpus actions”), we
find it unnecessary to remand to the district court for further
proceedings. It is indisputable the district court was without
jurisdiction over the matter; rather, jurisdiction is proper in a
federal district court in Washington. Further, we find that
transfer to the proper district court would not be in the interest
of justice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3