Trevor Piotrowski v. Unknown

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

TREVOR PIOTROWSKI, ) No. CV 21-2222-CAS (PLA) )

Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE v. ) )

UNKNOWN, ) )

Defendant. ) )

On March 10, 2021, Trevor Piotrowski (“Piotrowski”) filed a Civil Rights Complaint. He did not submit the filing fee, or a request to proceed without payment of the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). On March 18, 2021, the Magistrate Judge in this action dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend for the following reasons: (1) the allegations in the Complaint challenged the legality of Piotrowski’s pretrial confinement, not the conditions of his confinement, and therefore the claims should have been brought in a habeas petition; (2) there was no indication that Piotrowski had exhausted his state court remedies; and (3) because Piotrowski’s state criminal prosecution was ongoing, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), applied. (ECF No. 4). The Magistrate Judge explained that Piotrowski had two options: if he chose to pursue habeas relief, he may file a habeas petition; or alternatively, he may voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Piotrowski was provided copies of a blank habeas petition and a blank Central District Rule 41 dismissal form, and was ordered to file a habeas petition or notice of dismissal by April 14, 2021. (ECF Nos. 4, 4-1, 4-2).

Instead of filing either of the required forms, on April 6, 2021, Piotrowski submitted to the Court handwritten letter, in which he states, “I’m abandoning the Complaint, but | do want to tell you ‘why’ 6] | was writing it.” (ECF No. 5 at 1). Piotrowski explains that he was convicted in a prior trial so “this 7] is not [his] first rodeo,” that he is “not money driven to any measure whatsoever,” and that he is 8] currently preparing a separate complaint against a state court judge. (Id, at 1-3). As Piotrowski 9] unequivocally states in his letter he is “abandoning the Complaint,” and makes no reference to 10] habeas relief, the Court construes the letter as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 11] 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Piotrowski’s request for dismissal is granted, and this action is hereby dismissed without 13] prejudice. ,

DATED: April 8, 2021 Abeba Lf fy iw A.

HONORABLE CHRISTINA & SVR SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRIGA JUDGE Tf

Zr