Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00917-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dimitri Storm is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1, 7. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

On September 17, 2024, the magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to show cause why the action should not 

be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Doc. 8. Plaintiff failed to respond to 

the order. See Docket. On November 7, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure 

to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Doc. 10. Specifically, the findings 

and recommendations found that plaintiff’s August 8, 2024, complaint alleged conduct occurring 

DIMITRI Z. STORM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA 

GOVERNOR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:24-cv-917 KES-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Doc. 10

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/08/25 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

between July 20 and August 8, 2024. Id. at 3. Accordingly, there was “simply not enough time for 

Plaintiff to follow [the] prison’s grievance procedure and fully exhaust his claims before filing his suit.” 

Id. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. Id. at 4. Plaintiff did not file 

any objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 7, 2024, Doc. 10, are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2025 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 2