Fordyce v. Smith

Background

Joshua Fordyce, also identified as Brittany Fordyce, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison officials Warden S. Smith, Chief Executive Officer Katy Minor, Chief Support Executive J. Dark, and Dentist J. Herzog. The opinion describes Fordyce as a California prisoner. The court separately granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Fordyce alleged that a jaw fracture occurring before arrival at the prison caused tooth decay and extreme pain while chewing. She alleged that an unnamed prison head dietician required her to eat hard food despite knowing about her condition. She further alleged that prison officials denied her an accommodation and discriminated against her because she is transgender.

Screening and Legal Standard

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires a court to review a prisoner’s complaint against government officials and identify claims that can proceed or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and conduct by a person acting under state law.

The court explained that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the alleged violation. A supervisor is not liable merely because of the supervisor’s position, although the court noted that a supervisor’s knowing acceptance of a violation can support liability if adequately alleged.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Fordyce’s allegations did not state a cognizable claim because they did not explain how any named defendant participated in the alleged denial of accommodation or discrimination. The complaint identified a head dietician, but that person was not named as a defendant and none of the named defendants held that job title. The court also found that Fordyce had not alleged which supervisory defendants knew about the alleged violation or how they accepted it.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court granted Fordyce leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was due by February 20, 2025, had to use the caption and case number specified in the order, and had to include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. The court stated that an amended complaint replaces the original complaint, so Fordyce could not incorporate the original complaint by reference and had to include all claims she wished to pursue.

The order did not dismiss the case at that time. It warned that failure to amend as required could result in dismissal, and that failure to prosecute or comply with court orders could also result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).