Michael Benanti v. J. Doerer, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BENANTI, Case No.: 1:24-cv-1108 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 J. DOERER, et al., (Docs. 42, 45) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Michael Benanti seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights based 18 upon the conditions of a lockdown that occurred at USP-Atwater from August 9 to October 9, 19 2024. (See generally Doc. 10.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, requesting Court oversight of 20 various conditions of confinement at the facility, which Plaintiff believes will ensure compliance 21 with policies of the Bureau of Prisons and the preservation of constitutional rights. (Doc. 42.) 22 The magistrate judge found injunctive relief is not appropriate because it lacks jurisdiction 23 over the defendants and “the Court determined, after screening, that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 24 state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” (Doc. 45 at 6-7.) The magistrate judge also 25 determined the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 26 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) weighed against injunctive relief. (Id. at 7-9.) Finally, the magistrate 27 judge found Plaintiff’s request “concern[ed] broad categories of administrative decision making by Warden Doerer,” including asking “the Court to restrain federal correctional officials from 1 | taking certain actions or directing them to perform certain actions on behalf of all other inmates 2 | housed at USP- Atwater.” (/d. at 9-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court 3 | deny Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief. (/d. at 10.) 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 5 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 45 at 10.) The Court advised him that the □□□□□□□□ 6 | to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 7 | Ud. at 11, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not 8 | file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 10 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to 11 | be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 26, 2025 (Doc. 45) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 42) is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _September 20, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28