Fortner v. Lake County Jail

Background

Andy Lashawn Fortner, a pretrial detainee housed at Lake County Jail, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reviewed the complaint under the federal prisoner- and detainee-screening law, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Fortner had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint named Lake County Jail medical staff, Lake County Jail staff deputies, Deputy Saye, Phil, and Deputy Skoff. It alleged that Deputy “Saye Phil” would not let Fortner get water; Deputy Skoff made him take medication without water; and Fortner was twice falsely accused and three times written up for stockpiling medication.

Reason for Dismissal

To state a claim under § 1983, a complaint must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and conduct by a person acting under state authority. The court concluded that Fortner’s complaint did not allege any violation of federal law or the federal Constitution. It therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and because the allegations did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend and Filing Guidance

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Fortner was given 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint must use the caption and civil case number specified in the order and include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. It must replace the earlier complaint, include all claims and defendants Fortner wishes to pursue, and may not add material by referring back to the prior complaint. Failure to file a proper amended complaint on time will result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

The court also addressed Fortner’s frequent filings. It explained that the federal court could consider only claims arising under federal law, the federal Constitution, or another basis for federal jurisdiction. It cautioned against filing duplicative or repetitive lawsuits about the same events, stated that repeated failure-to-state-a-claim dismissals could affect Fortner’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees in future cases, and instructed him not to use letters to add events to this action. The court stated that only claims in an operative complaint could be litigated and that letters reporting new events would have no legal effect.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. It did not decide whether Fortner’s allegations ultimately established a constitutional or federal-law violation.