Andy LaShawn Fortner v. Lake County Jail

Background

Andy LaShawn Fortner, identified as a pretrial detainee housed at Lake County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order. The court reviewed his filings under the federal prisoner-screening statutes.

Fortner first filed a pleading in the Central District of California using a form for a petition challenging custody. That filing did not challenge the legality of his custody; it challenged jail conditions, so the Central District treated it as a prisoner civil-rights complaint. Fortner later filed another pleading on the same type of form, which the Central District docketed as an amended complaint. The case was then transferred to the Northern District of California.

Claims and pleading problems

The first filing described jail officials’ responses to a coughing episode on January 10 and a request for medical attention on January 11. The second filing alleged that grievances had been denied, medical treatment had been denied, jail officials had mocked and disrespected Fortner, officials had called him names and a liar, and officials had tampered with his mail. The court stated that it was unclear whether the second filing was intended to replace the first or begin a separate action. Regardless, the court concluded that neither filing stated a cognizable claim for relief.

The court identified several deficiencies:

- Neither filing clearly identified the federal constitutional provision or federal law allegedly violated. The references to a law concerning discrimination, mental health, and disabilities were not specific enough, and the second filing’s references to the Eighth Amendment and unidentified statutes did not explain how the alleged incidents violated federal law or the Constitution. - It was unclear whom Fortner was suing. The filings referred to unnamed deputies, jail staff, or “all staff.” The second filing named one defendant, nurse Lynn, but also described actions by other people. - Both filings failed to provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The court described them as vague and conclusory accounts of Fortner’s frustrations with jail staff, making it difficult to identify the legal causes of action. - The second filing violated the joinder rule in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. That rule permits defendants to be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction or series of related events and share a common legal or factual question. The court explained that alleged mail tampering and alleged denial of medical treatment appeared to involve separate events and might need to be pursued separately.

The court also discussed the medical allegations. It explained that an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim requires a serious medical need, a purposeful act or failure to act, knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm, disregard of that risk, and resulting harm. The court stated that Fortner disagreed with the medical treatment provided or not provided, but it was unclear whether he faced a substantial risk of serious harm or whether jail officials recognized and disregarded such a risk. The court further stated that a disagreement about medical treatment, by itself, does not establish an Eighth Amendment claim.

Disposition

The court DISMISSES Dkt. Nos. 1 and 6 for failure to state a claim. It GRANTS Fortner leave to file a second amended complaint. The order does not use the phrase “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” for those dismissals, but it permits Fortner to amend.

The court instructed Fortner to use the provided complaint form, include the required case caption and case number, and label the filing “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint must include all claims and defendants he wishes to pursue because an amended complaint replaces earlier complaints; it may not incorporate the earlier filings by reference. For each claim, Fortner must state the supporting facts, identify the individual defendant, explain why that defendant is being sued, and identify the constitutional provision or federal law allegedly violated. The court warned that failure to file the required second amended complaint within the time allowed would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.

Additional guidance

The court also addressed Fortner’s filing practices. It stated that conditions-of-confinement claims belong in a civil-rights action rather than a custody-challenge petition, that federal courts may consider only claims within their jurisdiction, and that duplicative or repetitive litigation may be dismissed. The court further warned that three or more prior qualifying dismissals could affect Fortner’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee in future cases, unless he faced imminent danger of serious physical injury. Finally, the court instructed him not to add new events through letters because only claims stated in the operative complaint would be litigated.