Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00236/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00236-4/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMITRI Z. STORM,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00236-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING 

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Doc. 11

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

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s complaint 

was screened and found not to state cognizable claims. Doc. 9. The assigned magistrate judge 

granted Plaintiff leave to amend and he was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty 

days. Id. at 8. The magistrate judge subsequently granted Plaintiff an extension of time in which 

to file his amended complaint.

1

 Doc. 14 at 3.

Concurrent with his original complaint, Plaintiff sought a restraining order and a 

preliminary injunction. Doc. 1. On August 23, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

1

 Plaintiff did not comply with the initial deadline stated in the screening order, and the Court 

issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the action. Doc. 12. After 

Plaintiff filed belated objections, the Court vacated the findings and recommendations 

recommending dismissal and granted a thirty-day extension of time in which to file a first 

amended complaint. Doc. 14. To date, Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint and the 

original complaint remains the operative pleading. See docket.

Case 1:24-cv-00236-KES-BAM Document 15 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 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

2

recommendations recommending denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and 

restraining order. Doc. 11. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. Id. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 23, 2024, (Doc. 11), are adopted in 

full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining order and preliminary injunction, (Doc. 1), is denied;

and

3. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00236-KES-BAM Document 15 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 2