Benanti v. USA

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Michael Benanti: The Court will impose sanctions and limit petitioners ability to file additional motions in this matter. Should petitioner wish to file any further motions in this action, he must obtain express permission of the Court, and a magistrate judge must certify that the motion is not frivolous.Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on January 6, 2022. (JAN)(copy mailed to dft at USP Atwater)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MICHAEL BENANTI,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Nos.: 3:20-CV-194-TAV-DCP
3:15-CR-177-TAV-DCP-1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are numerous motions [E.g., No. 3:20-CV-194-TAV-DCP
Docs. 20, 28; No. 3:15-CR-177-TAV-DCP-1 Docs. 312, 313], which the Court addresses
in other contemporaneously-filed orders. The purpose of this opinion and order is to
impose sanctions for petitioner’s repeated frivolous and already-addressed filings.
Pursuant to its inherent powers, a court in the Sixth Circuit may impose sanctions
to curb vexatious, bad faith litigation. First Bank v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307
F.3d 501, 512, 516 (6th Cir. 2002). “The purpose of sanctions is to deter the abuse of the
legal process.” Merritt v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 613 F.3d 609,
626 (6th Cir. 2010). Although an absolute bar to further litigation is too broad, a court may
“require one who has abused the legal process to make a showing that a tendered [filing]
is not frivolous or vexatious before permitting it to be filed.” Ortman v. Thomas, 99 F.3d
807, 811 (6th Cir. 1996).
The Court finds that sanctions are necessary. Petitioner has repeatedly made
numerous frivolous filings in both his civil and criminal cases that have exhausted a

Case 3:20-cv-00194-TAV-DCP Document 44 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1026

significant amount of the Court’s time and resources, and these filings have prevented the
Court from devoting time and energy to non-frivolous cases filed by other litigants. See
Zatko v. California, 502 U.S. 16, 17 (1991). Moreover, petitioner’s motions continuously
raise claims that the Court has rejected many times, such as his claims for prosecutorial
misconduct. Despite the Court’s repeated explanations that petitioner’s arguments are
meritless, he continues to waste judicial time and resources refiling the same arguments.
Accordingly, under its inherent power, the Court will impose sanctions and limit
petitioner’s ability to file additional motions in this matter. Should petitioner wish to file
any further motions in this action, he must obtain express permission of the Court, and a
magistrate judge must certify that the motion is not frivolous. See Filipas v. Lemons, 835
F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987) (upholding the district court’s requirement that prolific
litigators obtain leave of court before filing any further complaints). The Court has
considered other sanctions, but, given petitioner’s pattern of conduct as well as his current
incarceration, the Court concludes that frivolity review is the appropriate sanction.
Specifically, petitioner must follow the following procedure to obtain the Court’s
permission to file documents:
1.

Petitioner must mail a copy of the proposed document to the Clerk’s office.

2.

Petitioner must file a “Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to
File” with the proposed document. As an exhibit, petitioner must attach a
declaration or sworn affidavit certifying that the proposed document:

2

Case 3:20-cv-00194-TAV-DCP Document 44 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1027

(1) does not raise an issue that has already been raised; (2) does not present
frivolous issues; and (3) was not filed maliciously or in bad faith.
Upon receipt, the Clerk’s office shall route the proposed document and “Motion Pursuant
to Court Order Seeking Leave to File” to the appropriate magistrate judge for review.
For the reasons explained above, the Court hereby ORDERS sanctions to the extent
specified above. The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket any further filings in this matter as a
“motion for leave to file,” and direct such motion to the appropriate magistrate judge for
frivolity review.
ENTER:

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 3:20-cv-00194-TAV-DCP Document 44 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1028