Opinion
2:22-CV-1794-RSL
01-30-2023
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Noting Dated: February 17, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner John Robert Demos, Jr. has filed a proposed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Dkt. 1. Mr. Demos' petition challenges a 1978 King County Superior Court conviction. Id. Although Petitioner purports to proceed under § 2255, his petition challenges his state court conviction and, therefore, the proper basis for his habeas relief is 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Forde v. People of Cal., 2008 WL 2064779, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2008) (“habeas review of state court judgments is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not section 2241 or section 2255”). An Order of this Court provides for the return without filing of any petition by Mr. Demos that seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254, unless accompanied by the filing fee. See Demos v. Stanley, MC97-0031-JLW (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997).
Mr. Demos did not submit, with his materials, the requisite filing fee for this action. As Mr. Demos has not submitted a filing fee, the Court recommends that, pursuant to the Court's Order of March 13, 1997, the Clerk be DIRECTED to administratively close this matter.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on February 17, 2023, as noted in the caption.