Storm v. Newsom
- 3:23-cv-00889
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Storm v. Newsom, the court dismissed the petition, allowed amendment, and sent incarceration-related claims to a different district; the judge is not identified.
Dimitri Z. Storm’s petition was dismissed with leave to amend, while his claims about problems during incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility were dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in the Eastern District of California. The named respondents were Gavin Newsom, Robert Bonta, and Kathleen Allison.
What happened
Dimitri Z. Storm, representing himself, filed a handwritten petition seeking a writ of mandate against Gavin Newsom, Robert Bonta, and Kathleen Allison. The filing was difficult to understand and appeared to concern alleged failures by California prison staff to respond to reports and requests.
The court dismissed Storm’s incarceration-related claims without prejudice so he could refile them in a new civil-rights case in the Eastern District of California. It also dismissed the petition with leave to amend because a federal district court cannot order state courts or state officials to act through a writ of mandate.
The court gave Storm 28 days to file an amended complaint and said the action would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not do so. The opinion does not identify the judge; the court also ordered that a blank civil-rights complaint form be sent to Storm.
The detailed version
- Storm v. Newsom · No. 3:23-cv-00889
- Nov. 14, 2023
Background
Dimitri Z. Storm, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a handwritten document titled “Petition for Writ of Mandate.” The document named Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Robert Bonta, and former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Kathleen Allison as respondents. Storm appeared to allege that California prison staff failed to respond to requests and reports, including reports about alleged illegal activities, suspicious activity, and retaliation after contacting the prison system’s Office of Internal Affairs. The court said the filing’s exact nature, requested relief, and factual allegations were difficult to discern.
Legal framework
Because Storm sought relief from governmental officials, the court screened the filing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual information to plausibly show an entitlement to relief.
Ruling
The court explained that federal district courts lack authority to issue a writ of mandate directing a state court, state judicial officer, or other state official to perform or stop performing duties. It therefore DISMISSED the petition with leave to amend. Storm was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint addressing the stated legal standards and providing more information about the relief sought.
Separately, Storm’s claims concerning problems during his incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility were DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling them in a new civil-rights action in the Eastern District of California, where the facility is located. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the earlier filing and must include all claims Storm wished to pursue. Failure to file the amended complaint within 28 days would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. The court also ordered the Clerk to send Storm a blank civil-rights complaint form.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.