Andy Lashawn Fortner v. Cline

Background

Andy Lashawn Fortner filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that the complaint was initially filed using a form for a petition challenging custody, but that the pleading challenged the conditions of confinement rather than the legality of Fortner’s custody. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-complaint screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Fortner had separately been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The complaint named “Deputy Cline, Lake County Jail Sheriff Department, Sgt. Jacob, Deputy Vierna” as defendants. Fortner alleged that injuries from being run over in 2022 affected his speech; that Deputy Cline mimicked his voice and made fun of him; and that this caused emotional stress and emotional and physical pain and made him feel less than a man. He asserted that Deputy Cline violated what he called the federal Americans with Disabilities Act mental-health and disability law. The complaint contained no factual allegations about the Lake County Jail Sheriff Department, Sgt. Jacob, or Deputy Vierna.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. It also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires allegations that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by someone acting under state law.

The court held that the complaint did not state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It found that Fortner did not allege that he was denied services or programs. The court also held that the allegations of verbal harassment and abuse did not state a cognizable § 1983 civil-rights claim. The court noted that Fortner had raised the allegation that Deputy Cline mimicked him and made fun of him in other related actions and explained that repetitive litigation may be dismissed as malicious under the federal filing-fee statute.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint and the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. It stated that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because amendment would be futile, meaning further changes to the complaint would not cure the identified problems. The court also designated the dismissal as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).