Fordyce v. Frye

Background

Joshua Fordyce, identified in the opinion as a California prisoner and transgender inmate, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The defendants were identified as Pelican Bay State Prison officials Dr. Frye, Dr. Rush, Danielle Wood, and “Jermy.” Fordyce alleged that the prison canteen did not carry “gender affirming cosmetics,” that mental-health doctors discriminated against her because she is a transgender woman on two occasions, and that she was being discriminated against because the prison had no official policy concerning housing transgender inmates.

Legal standard

The court explained that prisoner complaints must undergo preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court must identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. A defendant must have been personally involved in the alleged violation.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Fordyce had not stated a claim that could proceed because the complaint did not allege facts showing how any named defendant was involved in violating her rights. The allegation that the canteen generally did not provide cosmetics did not identify the personal actions of any defendant. The allegations that mental-health professionals discriminated against Fordyce were described as conclusory and did not explain how any defendant was personally involved or what each defendant did or failed to do.

The court also found it implausible, based on the allegations presented, that the named mental-health and canteen officials had a role in setting the prison’s housing policy or authority to change it. The court instructed Fordyce that an amended complaint would need to identify the actions or failures of each defendant, the occasions on which they occurred, and how they caused unlawful discrimination.

Disposition

Judge Susan van Keulen granted Fordyce leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was due on or before February 14, 2025, and had to use the required caption, case number, and words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, Fordyce was instructed to include all claims she wished to pursue rather than incorporating the original complaint by reference. The order stated that failure to amend on time and in compliance with the order could result in dismissal, and that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could also result in dismissal. The order did not dismiss the case.