Andy Lashawn Fortner v. Lake County Jail Religious Services
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-03405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Fortner v. Lake County Jail and Lake County Jail Religious Services: Judge Corley dismissed both habeas petitions without prejudice because they challenged jail conditions, not conviction or sentence.
Andy Lashawn Fortner’s two cases were dismissed without prejudice. The ruling leaves him able to file the confinement-condition claims as civil-rights actions, but the opinion does not decide whether those claims have merit.
What happened
Andy Lashawn Fortner filed two petitions claiming problems with the conditions of his confinement at the Lake County Jail. The petitions were transferred from the Central District of California to the Northern District of California, and Fortner was not represented by a lawyer.
The court explained that challenges to confinement conditions must be brought as civil-rights cases, not as petitions challenging a conviction or sentence. The court could not convert these petitions because Fortner named the jail and its religious-services department, rather than legally suable entities or individual officials.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley dismissed both petitions without prejudice, allowing Fortner to bring the claims in civil-rights actions under federal law. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the files.
The detailed version
- Andy Lashawn Fortner v. Lake County Jail Religious Services · No. 3:25-cv-03405
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Andy Lashawn Fortner, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed two petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Central District of California transferred the cases to the Northern District of California. The petitions challenged conditions of confinement at the Lake County Jail, rather than Fortner’s conviction or sentence.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a petition under § 2254 is used to challenge the validity or duration of confinement. Claims about the conditions of confinement must instead be brought in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court considered whether it could recharacterize the petitions as civil-rights complaints. It concluded that it could not because the petitions did not name the correct defendants. In Case No. 25-cv-02944-JSC, Fortner named “Lake County Jail.” The court stated that the jail is a facility, not a legal entity, and identified Lake County or individual jail officials as the proper potential defendants for such claims. In Case No. 25-cv-03405-JSC, Fortner named “Lake County Jail Religious Services,” which the court also stated is not a municipal entity that can be sued.
Ruling
The court dismissed both petitions without prejudice to Fortner filing his claims in civil-rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would be issued because reasonable judges would not find it debatable that the claims had to be brought as civil-rights claims rather than habeas petitions. The clerk was directed to enter judgments and close the files.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.