Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00917-1/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 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 

AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS THIS CASE FOR FAILURE 

TO EXHAUST 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, 

DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

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

this civil rights action. Plaintiff generally claims that his phone calls and activities on his tablet 

were interfered with and disrupted. For reasons stated below, the Court directs the Clerk of 

Court to assign a district judge to this case and recommends that this case be dismissed for 

failure to exhaust apparent from the face of the complaint. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on August 8, 2024. (ECF No. 1). He alleged 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). 

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 11/07/24 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

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

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, on September 17, 

2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Plaintiff to file a response within 

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

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s order and 

the time do so has passed. 

II. 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).

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 11/07/24 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

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. . . .

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.

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).

III. ANALYSIS

It is apparent 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 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, this action should be dismissed for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies. The Court notes that this dismissal is without prejudice. Therefore, if

Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies in the future, he could refile the complaint. 

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 11/07/24 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

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

It is apparent from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies available to him prior to filing this action.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 

In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed without prejudice because it is clear from the face of 

the complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to 

filing this suit; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 

judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 

772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 

1991)). Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 pages including exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00917-KES-EPG Document 10 Filed 11/07/24 Page 4 of 4