Dimitri Z. Storm v. Lopez, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02014
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIMITRI Z. STORM, Case No. 2:25-cv-2014-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOPEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff brings this action against three CDCR officers and the Warden of Mule Creek 19 State Prison. The allegations fail to state a claim. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file an amended 20 complaint that addresses the deficiencies noted herein. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 21 pauperis makes the required showing and will be granted. 22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 25 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 26 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief. Id. 28 1 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 3 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 4 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 5 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 6 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 7 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 8 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 9 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 10 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 11 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 12 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 13 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 14 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 15 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 16 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 17 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 18 Analysis 19 Plaintiff alleges that two CDCR officers, defendants Lopez and McIntyre, and the 20 Warden, violated his constitutional rights while he was housed at Mule Creek State Prison.1 ECF 21 No. 1. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Lopez verbally threatened plaintiff and demonstrated 22 threatening postures towards him. Id. at 3. Plaintiff lodges similar allegations against McIntyre 23 but claims that McIntyre harassed plaintiff because of a lawsuit plaintiff filed against McIntyre. 24 Id. at 4. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the Warden violated national security by not filing 25 suspicious activity reports against Lopez and McIntyre. Id. In support of his allegations, plaintiff 26 has attached a host of documents, including a Privacy Act Data Cover Sheet from the Department 27 1 Plaintiff identifies CDCR Officer Lt. McTaggart as a defendant, but the complaint does 28 not contain any allegations against McTaggart. 1 of Defense, a Human Source Validation Report from the Department of Justice, letters from the 2 CIA and DHS concerning plaintiff’s FOIA requests, and multiple photos of different crests. Id. at 3 5-21. 4 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a claim 5 against the Warden. Plaintiff alleges that the Warden failed to file a suspicious activity report 6 against Lopez and McIntyre, but the Warden’s inaction in filing a report does not constitute a 7 constitutional violation. Moreover, the complaint is devoid of allegations that would give rise to 8 supervisory liability. See Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). With 9 respect to Lopez and McIntyre, plaintiff alleges that they made threats against him, but threats 10 generally are not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F3d 11 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding that assaultive comments by prison guard were insufficient to 12 implicate the Eighth Amendment); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that 13 mere threats did not constitute constitutional wrong). 14 Finally, plaintiff suggests in passing that McIntyre’s actions were motivated by plaintiff’s 15 lawsuit against McIntyre, but the allegations are too conclusory. To state a First Amendment 16 retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse 17 action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action 18 (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 19 reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 567-68 (9th 20 Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 21 Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. I will allow 22 plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be dismissed. If 23 plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current 24 one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means 25 that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior 26 pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current one no 27 longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in the original, plaintiff will 28 need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The 1 | amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 2 | number. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be 3 | dismissed. 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 6 2. Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 7 3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 8 | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 9 4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 10 | result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 11 | with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 12 5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ September 23, 2025 Q_——. 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28