Trevor Piotrowski v. Los Angeles County Clerk

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 30, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TREVOR PIOTROWSKI, Case No: 2:23-cv-02105-CAS-KES

12 Plaintiff, Honorable Christina A. Snyder 13 v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE 14

15 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CLERK, et al.,

16 Defendants. 17 18 On March 20, 2023, plaintiff Trevor Piotrowski filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit 19 against the “Los Angeles County Clerk,” Sheriff Robert Luna, and a “John Doe” 20 psychiatrist at the Los Angeles Department of Mental Health. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). 21 Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee at the Los Angeles County Jail. 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner may not bring a civil action “if the 23 prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any 24 facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed 25 on the ground that it was frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious 27 physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In order to qualify under the “imminent 1 danger” exception, a plaintiff must allege a “valid relationship, or nexus, between the 2 allegations of imminent danger and the civil rights action” such that a favorable 3 judicial outcome is “capable of redressing the asserted injury.” Williams v. Passini, 4 No. 2:17-CV-01362-KJM (CKD) P, 2018 WL 4215972, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 5 2018). 6 Prior federal courts have already “dismissed more than three of Piotrowski’s 7 civil rights complaints for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim. 8 See, e.g., Piotrowski v. Snyder, No. 2:16-cv-00251, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169192 9 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2016); Piotrowski v. Michigan, No. 1:12-cv-00011, 2012 U.S. 10 Dist. LEXIS 25514 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2012); Piotrowski v. Petro, No. 2:04-cv- 11 73177, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32874 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2004).” Piotrowski v. 12 Snyder, No. 17-cv-13631, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193963, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13 27, 2017). However, plaintiff appears to allege that he has been placed in danger at 14 the LA County Jail. Compl. at 8 (“I have been in approximately 10 fist fights. I have 15 had a total of 13 stitches and 2 staples in my head due [to] injuries obtained in 16 defending myself. . .”). 17 Nonetheless, plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. A 18 complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the defendant 19 fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. 20 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 21 41, 47 (1957)). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the 22 violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that 23 the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. 24 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S. Ct. 2250, 101 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1988). 25 Plaintiff alleges that he is “capriciously being prohibited and denied my 26 unalienable and inalienable right to worship . . . according to the dictates of [his] own 27 conscience” and that he is being “discriminated against due to [his] religion . . 1 national background as a Hebrew of the patriarch (tribe) of Benjamin, [his] gender, 2 race and sexual orientation.” Compl. at 5. He further alleges that defendants are 3 “systematically forcing [him] to adhere and conform to” various Christian churches, 4 and that defendants refuse to recognize his new name of “Yashua” and “title of 5 sovereign and elect King.” Id. 6 Plaintiff’s allegations resemble one of his previous lawsuits which a court in 7 the Western District of Michigan deemed to be frivolous: 8 Plaintiff does not identify any constitutional rights that would serve as the basis 9 for his action. Construing the complaint liberally, Plaintiff arguably asserts a 10 violation of his right to practice his religion. While “lawful incarceration 11 brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and 12 rights,” inmates clearly retain the First Amendment protection to freely 13 exercise their religion. See O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348, 107 S. Ct. 14 2400, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1987) (citations omitted). Generally, prison officials 15 may only impinge on this right in a manner that is “reasonably related to 16 legitimate penological interests.” Flagner v. Wilkinson, 241 F.3d 475, 483 17 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Plaintiff’s 18 claim that Defendants have not recognized his new name does not state a First 19 Amendment claim, however. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly found no merit 20 in a prisoner's claim that “prison officials violated his First Amendment rights 21 by refusing to use his religious name.” Spies v. Voinovich, 173 F.3d 398, 406 22 (6th Cir.1999); see Shuaib v. Stiddum, 856 F.2d 195, (6th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he 23 failure to refer to an inmate by a legally-adopted name simply is not violative 24 of the [F]irst [A]mendment right to freedom of religion.”) (citing Akbar v. 25 Canney, 634 F.2d 339 (6th Cir.1980)); see also Porter v. Caruso, 479 F. Supp. 26 2d 687, 700 (W.D. Mich. 2007) (noting that the Constitution does not 27 guarantee a right “that prison officials will refer to him only by his chosen 1 appellation”). Similarly, the First Amendment does not require prison officials 2 to recognize Plaintiff's self-declared role as [a religious “King” ]. Indeed, there 3 are no allegations indicating that Defendants’ refusal to recognize that role 4 impairs any rights of Plaintiff, much less the right for him to exercise his 5 religion. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, Plaintiff does not state a First 6 Amendment claim. 7 | Piotrowski v. Michigan, No. 1:12-cv-11, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25514, at *4-6 8 | (W.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2012). The Court here finds plaintiff's claims to be equally 9 | without merit. 10 Additionally, the complaint must be dismissed because it fails to identify 11 | which defendants and what conduct they committed with respect to alleged violations 12 | of his constitutional rights. Ifa plaintiff fails to clearly set forth allegations sufficient 13 | to provide defendants with fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and what relief is 14 | being sought, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8. See, e.g., McHenry v. 15 | Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 16 | 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, the complaint does not allege facts showing 17 | what the defendants did, so the complaint does not put defendant on notice of what 18 | plaintiff's claims are, and he fails to state a claim on this basis. 19 Ultimately, the Court concludes that the Complaint is factually frivolous and 20 | legally baseless and thus should be dismissed. See Hendrix v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 21 | 490, 491(9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the 22 | allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] conclusory” or palpably incredible . . . ‘or 23 | patently frivolous or false.’”’) (citations omitted). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 | Dated: March 30, 2023 Ahruotiue bry de *6 Honorable Christina A. Snyder 27 US. District Court Judge 28 3.