(PC) Benanti v. Doerer

Opinion

MICHAEL BENANTI, Case No. 1:24-cv-01108-CDB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTIONS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO DESIST FROM FILING J. DOERER, FURTHER PLEADINGS PENDING CONCLUSION OF APPELLATE Defendant. PROCEEDINGS (Docs. 30-34) Plaintiff Michael Benanti, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action, seeks to hold Defendant liable for violations of his civil rights, based upon the conditions of lockdown that occurred at USP-Atwater from August 9 to October 9, 2024. (See generally Doc. 10). On January 13, 2025, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. entered judgment accordingly and closed the case. (Docs. 16, 17). On January 31, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, denied Plaintiff’s construed motion for reconsideration under Rule 59 without prejudice to his refiling and discussing the proper issues, and because the action remains closed, terminated his motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 18). See (Doc. 20). Plaintiff subsequently filed a number of motions, including for reconsideration and a subsequent request for judicial notice. (Docs. 21-26). On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s January 31, 2025, order (Doc. 20), which was processed by the Court of Appeals the same date and is docketed with that court as No. 25-1252. (Docs. 27-29). Following the filing of his notice of appeal, Plaintiff filed a “motion for indicative ruling” and various other motions for relief, including to create a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to remove parties from the action, for the appointment of counsel, as well as a renewed motion for injunctive relief on March 28, 2025. (Docs. 30-34). “[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” (Id.); see Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.”). The purpose of this rule is “to promote judicial economy and avoid the confusion that would ensue from having the same issues before two courts simultaneously.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 242 F.3d at 1166. Because, as set forth below, the filing by Plaintiff of a notice of appeal divested this Court of any jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s motions filed after the notice of appeal (Docs. 30-34) will be terminated as improper filings because additional proceedings in this case could result in inconsistent results. See, e.g., Birru v. Barr, No. 2:20-cv-00890-TLN-DB, 2020 WL 2395078, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2020) (denying the petitioner’s “second, duplicative” petition for release where the petitioner’s appeal was “currently pending before the Ninth Circuit”). Plaintiff is directed to desist from filing any further pleadings until the appeal of the dispositive ruling in this case is concluded. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Conclusion and Order Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Plaintiff's motions filed following Plaintiffs notice of appel (Docs. 30-34); and 2. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to desist from filing further pleadings until the appeal (Doc. 27- 29) is concluded. Any failure by Plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 2, 2025 | hr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE