Fortner

Background

Andy LaShawn Fortner, identified as a pretrial detainee housed at Lake County Jail, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without a lawyer. The court reviewed his complaint under the prisoner-screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Fortner had separately been granted permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The complaint named Lake County Jail, Lake County Jail staff and an aid technician, and Peggy Perry. Fortner alleged retaliation after he filed grievances concerning Perry, Deputy Cline, and Deputy Hodges; denial of medical rights; mocking and verbal abuse by deputies and medical staff; returned mail and interference with outgoing mail and legal work; denial of grievances; and Perry’s failure to respond when he pressed his intercom button. The opinion’s recitation of the allegations ends while describing an allegation that Perry lied to a sergeant.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court identified several deficiencies:

- No identified federal violation: The court held that the complaint did not allege a violation of federal law or the federal Constitution, as required for a claim under § 1983 and for federal-question jurisdiction. - Improper joinder: The complaint combined claims involving separate events and defendants. The court explained that claims against different defendants may be joined only when they arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and share a common question of law or fact. The alleged intercom incident, mail interference, and mimicking were given as examples of events that appeared separate. The court instructed Fortner to select claims that satisfy these requirements and to file separate actions for claims arising from separate occurrences. - Conclusory allegations: The court found that Fortner offered conclusions without enough facts. It was unclear how the alleged mimicking or refusal to answer the intercom violated his constitutional rights. The court stated that unpleasant interactions, verbal harassment, and abuse do not by themselves state a claim under § 1983. It also noted that a difference of opinion about medical treatment does not by itself establish a constitutional violation. - Improper defendants and municipal liability: The court explained that § 1983 does not impose liability on a supervisor merely because of responsibility for another person’s actions or omissions. If Fortner intended to assert a claim against Lake County based on jail conduct, the proper defendant would be Lake County rather than the jail department. Such a municipal-liability claim would require facts supporting an inference that an official county policy, longstanding practice or custom, or final policymaker’s decision caused the constitutional violation.

Additional Guidance

The court noted that Fortner had filed at least ten lawsuits in the Central District of California and the Northern District of California since January 2025, and that he had filed letters reporting alleged new wrongs after filing complaints. The court warned that federal courts may consider only matters within their jurisdiction, that duplicative or repetitive litigation may be dismissed as malicious, and that three or more qualifying dismissals could affect his ability to proceed without prepaying filing fees in future cases unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court also instructed him not to use letters to add events to the complaint because letters have no legal effect and do not replace an operative complaint.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend. Fortner had 28 days from May 6, 2025, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number in the order, include the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, include all claims and defendants he wished to pursue, and not incorporate the earlier complaint by reference. The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the time provided would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.