John Demos v. Eric Holder, No. 13-6516 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6516 JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Petitioner Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC H. HOLDER; U.S. INTERIOR; U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF THE Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cv-03715-CCB) Submitted: October 8, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Robert Demos, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Demos, a Washington state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. state § 2241 (2006) petition, convictions. The seeking district relief court from dismissed his the 1978 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006) because Demos, a three striker under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), failed to demonstrate that physical injury. While he was under imminent danger of serious Demos appeals. dismissal under § 1915(g) was improper, see Smith v. Angelone, 112 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 that venue in the District of Maryland was improper; rather, venue lay in a federal district court in the State of Washington. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (2006). district court would not See Further, transfer to the proper be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.