Demos v. United States et al, No. 3:2012cv00061 - Document 5 (N.D. Miss. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 4 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 8/28/12. (cr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR. PLAINTIFFS v. No. 3:12CV61-M-S UNITED STATES, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. The plaintiff lists as defendants the United States and the State of Washington. The plaintiff states that he is entitled to $500,000.00 in damages. He alleges, among other things, that on January 15, 1974, he was seized as the prize/booty by pirates aboard an armed privateer cruiser boat. The pirates were disguised as Department of Corrections officials and State and County Detectives from the State of Washington. The other claims in the complaint touch on whether the Holy Bible is the supreme law of the land. The court has considered the contents of the pro se complaint and has given it the liberal construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); however, the complaint makes no sense. The complaint describes events occurring 38 years ago, and contains no information about how any of the defendants are connected to whatever the plaintiff those events. Quite simply, the complaint does not make any sense. Courts have the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . . Examples . . . are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios . . . . Id., 490 U.S. at 327, 328. The plaintiff s allegations unquestionably are examples of fantastic or delusional scenarios. As such, they will be dismissed. A final judgment in accordance with this opinion will be entered today. THIS the 28th day of August, 2012. /s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
]]>
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.
