(PC) Benanti v. Doerer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 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-01108 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 J. DOERER, et al., CLOSE THIS CASE

15 Defendants. (Doc. 15)

16 17 Michael Benanti is a federal prisoner and seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations 18 of his civil rights, based upon the conditions of lockdown that occurred at the United States 19 Penitentiary- Atwater from August 9 to October 9, 2024. (See generally Doc. 10.) The 20 magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for 21 failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 13), and Plaintiff failed to respond to the order. 22 The magistrate judge found it was “clear on the face of the complaint that Plaintiff has 23 failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required under the Prison 24 Litigation Reform Act.” (Doc. 15 at 2.) Although Plaintiff asserted that he was unable to access 25 grievance forms, the magistrate judge found “no allegations to suggest this was anything other 26 than a temporary unavailability.” (Id. at 3.) In addition, Plaintiff did not allege “any efforts by 27 him to exhaust administrative remedies after the lockdown ended where thwarted.” (Id., 28 emphasis omitted.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss “this action 1 | without prejudice to Plaintiffs re-filing once his claims are exhausted.” (/d. at 4.) 2 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 3 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 15 at 5.) The Court advised him that the “failure 4 | to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., 5 | citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 6 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 8 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 9 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 20, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 11 ADOPTED in full. 12 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiffs failure to 13 exhaust his administrative remedies. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending matters and close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17} Dated: _January 13, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28