Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00917-0/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 Z. STORM,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA 

GOVERNOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00917-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Dimitri Z. Storm is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on August 8, 2024. (ECF No. 1). 

Plaintiff generally claims that his phone calls and activities on his tablet were interfered with 

and disrupted between July 20, 2024 and August 8, 2024. (Id. at 2). 

Because Plaintiff’s complaint was both signed and filed on August 8, 2024, it appears 

from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative 

remedies before filing this action. (Id. at 7; see also docket).

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days, 

explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies. Such a dismissal would be without prejudice, so that Plaintiff may 

refile the action after exhausting administrative remedies, to the extent those remedies are still 

available to him.

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 09/17/24 Page 1 of 4
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

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) provides that 

“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 

(9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). The exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to 

prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the 

relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, unless “the 

relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief or to take any action 

whatsoever in response to a complaint.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 741 (2001); Ross 

v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643 (2016).

“Under the PLRA, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong 

for which redress is sought. The grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories, 

because [t]he primary purpose of a grievance is to alert the prison to a problem and facilitate its 

resolution, not to lay groundwork for litigation. The grievance process is only required to alert 

prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may 

be sued.” Reyes, 810 F.3d at 659 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

As discussed in Ross, 578 U.S. at 639, there are no “special circumstances” exceptions 

to the exhaustion requirement. The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed 

be ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id. The Ross Court described this qualification as follows:

[A]n administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what 

regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple 

dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide 

any relief to aggrieved inmates. See 532 U.S., at 736, 738, 121 S.Ct. 

1819. . . .

Next, an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, 

practically speaking, incapable of use. . . .

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 09/17/24 Page 2 of 4
3

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

And finally, the same is true when prison administrators thwart 

inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through 

machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation. . . . As all those courts 

have recognized, such interference with an inmate’s pursuit of relief 

renders the administrative process unavailable. And then, once again, 

§ 1997e(a) poses no bar.

Id. at 643–44.

If the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust, the proper remedy is dismissal 

without prejudice of the portions of the complaint barred by section 1997e(a). Jones, 549 U.S. 

at 223–24; Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2005).

When it is clear on the face of the complaint that a plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies, dismissal is proper. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2014).

II. ANALYSIS

It appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff did not exhaust his available 

administrative remedies before filing this action. Plaintiff complains of conduct that occurred 

between July 20 and August 8, 2024. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff’s complaint was both signed 

and filed on August 8, 2024. (Id. at 7). There simply was not enough time for Plaintiff to follow 

prison’s grievance procedure and fully exhaust his claims before filing his suit.

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The Court notes that this 

dismissal would be without prejudice. Therefore, if Plaintiff exhausts his administrative 

remedies in the future, he could refile the complaint.

In response to this order, the Court also welcomes Plaintiff to file any documents he 

believes demonstrates that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of service 

of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s response may also 

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 09/17/24 Page 3 of 4
4

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

contain any documents Plaintiff believes are responsive to the exhaustion issue. If Plaintiff fails 

to file a response the Court may recommend to a district judge that Plaintiff’s complaint be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Again, if Plaintiff’s 

case is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Plaintiff may refile the 

complaint after he has exhausted administrative remedies to the extent those remedies are still 

available to him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 09/17/24 Page 4 of 4