DeBenedetto v. Marshall et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GARY DEBENEDETTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM MARSHALL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 25-12166
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, J.
Gary DeBenedetto, who is currently confined at Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) Devens,
has filed a complaint against the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and FMC Devens
Warden Fred Bowers, claiming that his confinement is unlawful. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). DeBenedetto
also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, and a motion for injunctive
relief prohibiting the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) from administering psychotropic
medication without his consent, Dkt. 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny without prejudice the motion for injunctive
relief, and dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I. 	Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Upon review of DeBenedetto’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
concludes that he has shown he is unable to pay the $405 filing fee. 	Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS the motion.1
1 Because DeBenedetto is not a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),
he is not required to pay the statutory filing fee over time. See Perkins v. Hedricks, 340 F.3d 582, 583 (8th Cir. 2003)
(per curiam) (stating that a civilly committed person is not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA).
Case 1:25-cv-12166-BEM Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 5

2
II. 	Review of the Complaint
Because DeBenedetto is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may conduct a
preliminary review of his complaint and dismiss any claim that is malicious or frivolous, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune from such relief. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	In conducting this review, the Court
liberally construes DeBenedetto’s complaint because he is representing himself. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
DeBenedetto alleges that, over the past ten years, he has been “harshly [and] physically”
held in different BOP facilities “with no finding of innocence or guilt and with no trial, and with
no sentence and with no charges.” Compl. at 1. According to DeBenedetto, in July 2014 he was
taken to FMC Butner for an evaluation as part of a pending criminal prosecution against him.
DeBenedetto states that on August 13, 2014, the court dismissed the charges, “leaving [him] in the
prison without charges, a trial, a finding of innocence or guilt or a legal sentence violating his
Constitutional Rights under the Fifth Amendment Right to due process of law.” Id. DeBenedetto
represents that “[t]he USA or the AUSA . . . argues that [he is] merely ‘fighting a civil
commitment,’” but he contends that “such a statement is utterly deceptive and false” and that he
is “not[]civilly committed anywhere.” Id. In his prayer for relief, DeBenedetto seeks $3.1 million
for the ten years “of punishment done in Federal Prisons and the unconstitutional physical and
mental and emotional pain and suffering” and punitive damages. Id. at 3.
Federal law provides for the civil commitment of a “person in the custody of the Bureau
of Prisons . . . against whom all criminal charges have been dismissed solely for reasons related to
the mental condition of the person” to the custody of the Attorney General if a court finds, by clear
and convincing evidence, that the person “is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect as
a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or
Case 1:25-cv-12166-BEM Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 5

3
serious damage to property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d). DeBenedetto’s complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted because public judicial records show that he is in
custody pursuant to an order of civil commitment.2
On August 5, 2014, the United States filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina a certificate signed by the warden of FMC Butner stating that
the forensic staff of FMC Butner believed that DeBenedetto was “currently suffering from a mental
disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person or serious damage to the property of another.” 	United States v. Debenedetto,
No. 5:14-02172, Dkt. 1 at 3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2014). 	The warden also stated that “suitable
arrangements for state custody and care” of DeBenedetto were “not available.” Id. The warden
requested that a hearing be scheduled to determine whether DeBenedetto “should remain
committed to the Mental Health Department at FMC-Butner.” 	Id. 	On November 6, 2014, the
court issued an order finding that DeBenedetto met the requirements for commitment under
section 4246 and committed him to the custody and care of the Attorney General. Debenedetto,
No. 5:14-02172, Dkt. 14 at 1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2014). 	This order was affirmed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 18, 2025. United States v. Debenedetto,
618 Fed. App’x 751, 753–54 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2015).3 DeBenedetto remains confined pursuant
to this order.4 As such, the complaint must be dismissed.
2 The Court may take judicial notice of these proceedings. See Wiener v. MIB Group, Inc., 86 F.4th 76, 81
n.3 (1st Cir. 2023) (“It is well-accepted that federal courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts if
those proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand.” (quoting Law Offices of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer
Law Firm, 782 F.3d 46, 56 n.7 (1st Cir. 2015))).
3 In January 2019, DeBenedetto was conditionally released to the United States Probation Office for the
Eastern District of Michigan, but the conditional release was revoked in October 2019. 	See United States v.
Debenedetto, No. 5:14-02172, Dkt. 59 at 1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2014).
4 On April 5, 2025, DeBenedetto filed in this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the fact
of his confinement. See Debenedetto v. Bowers, No. 25-10873-RGS, Dkt. 1 (D. Mass.). On July 1, 2025, the Court
ordered that the action be transferred to the committing court. Dkt. 30. The action remains pending in the transferee
court. See Debenedetto v. Bowers, No. 5:25-02155 (E.D.N.C.).
Case 1:25-cv-12166-BEM Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 5

4
III. 	Motion for Injunctive Relief
In his motion for injunctive relief, DeBenedetto asserts that FMC Devens “is illegally
forcing antipsychotic drugs or neuroleptics on the Plaintiff without legal cause or any good reason”
and asks that this Court issue an order “disallowing the B.O.P. from forcefully administering these
substances to the Plaintiff henceforth.” Dkt. 3 at 1. DeBenedetto refers to a 2014 decision of the
Seventh Circuit in his criminal case in which the appellate court found that the trial court had erred
in concluding that the government had adequately established that all requirements for the
involuntary administration of medication had been met. 	See United States v. Debenedetto, 744
F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 2014).5 Debenedetto claims that, notwithstanding the decision of the Seventh
Circuit, the BOP held “its own ‘due process’” at which it forcefully “administered injections of
[antipsychotic] drugs to the Plaintiff who is uncharged and untried.” 	Dkt. 3 at 1. 	Debenedetto
asserts that he is not a threat to anyone or to the safety and security of the prison, and that “no
viable evidence to the contrary exists for the Government.” Id.
The Court DENIES the motion without prejudice to commencing a new action concerning
prison staff’s administration of medication against his will. 	DeBenedetto’s complaint does not
contain any allegations concerning the involuntary administration of medication, and the motion
for injunctive relief does not provide enough information for the Court to determine whether any
form of relief is appropriate.
Should DeBenedetto chose to pursue a separate action concerning the involuntary
administration of medication, he must include in his complaint basic information concerning the
factual basis of his claim, including the dates of the relevant events, the medication to be
5 On April 4, 2014, the Seventh Circuit issued a superseding decision to address arguments the government
had made in a petition for a panel rehearing. The appellate court denied the government’s motion and again found
that the requirements for the involuntary administration of medication had not been met. 	See United States v.
Debenedetto, 757 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014).
Case 1:25-cv-12166-BEM Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 5

5
administered (or was administered), any reason proffered by a defendant for the involuntary
administration of the medication, and the reasons for which the involuntary administration of
medication was or would be unlawful.
IV. 	Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby orders:
1) 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is GRANTED.
2) 	The motion for an injunction, Dkt. 3, is DENIED without prejudice.
3) 	This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
/s/ Brian E. Murphy
Brian E. Murphy
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-12166-BEM Document 5 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 5