Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01556-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Michael Benanti is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On December 17, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 85.) The 

Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were 

due within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 6, 2020. (ECF No. 88.) 

///

///

///

///

MICHAEL BENANTI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MATEVOUSIAN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:17-cv-01556-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

[ECF Nos. 68, 82, 85, 87]

Case 1:17-cv-01556-NONE-SAB Document 93 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On January 6, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint filed on December 2, 2019, be denied. 

(ECF No. 87.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice 

that objections were due within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections on January 15, 2020. 

(ECF No. 92.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

In his objections, Plaintiff continues to argue, inter alia, that he was denied a copy of his 

deposition, he is unable to depose certain witnesses, and he it was “unfair” to deny appointment of 

counsel and appointment of an expert witness. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiff’s arguments were properly 

addressed by orders issued by the assigned Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 35, 63, 72, 76, 80, 91), and 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any basis for reconsideration. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, 

Plaintiff’s indigency and in forma pauperis status does not entitle him to counsel, a free copy of the 

deposition transcript, or waiver of the fees necessary to depose witnesses. Plaintiff’s mere 

disagreement with any court order is not a valid basis for reconsideration. U.S. Westlands Water 

Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001); see also In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 

242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989) (Rule 60(b)(6) may provide relief where parties were confronted with 

extraordinary circumstances but it does not provide a second chance for parties who made deliberate 

choices). 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:17-cv-01556-NONE-SAB Document 93 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 17, 2019, and January 6, 

2020 (ECF Nos. 85 and 87) are adopted in full; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (ECF No. 82) is denied; 

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68) is granted; and 

4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01556-NONE-SAB Document 93 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3