Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00013-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUTOMER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00013-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(ECF No. 2)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jesse L. Youngblood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 4, 2024, 

together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff filed a certified 

copy of his trust account statement on January 4, 2024. (ECF No. 6.)

Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which provides that “[i]n no event shall a 

prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior 

occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of 

the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious

///

Case 1:24-cv-00013-KES-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/09/24 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

physical injury.”1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that his allegations do not satisfy 

the imminent danger exception to section 1915(g). Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047,

1053−55 (9th Cir. 2007). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is suffering from imminent 

danger and physical bodily harm because he is being involuntarily medicated and wrongfully 

imprisoned. (ECF No. 1.) Although his allegations are difficult to understand, it appears Plaintiff 

alleges that he attempted to discontinue his medications, but the involuntary medication was 

ultimately continued following a hearing. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff’s complaint goes on to allege that 

the medications cause him harm and he is also being poisoned due to chemicals and drugs present 

in his food, water, and air vents. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, as well as discontinuation 

of all medications, restoration of all good time credits, reopening of his active court cases, receipt 

of victims compensation, and provision of a federal public defender, among other relief. (Id. at 

11.)

Plaintiff’s claims that he is suffering harmful side effects from involuntary medication are

insufficient to satisfy the imminent danger exception. See Hendon v. Kulka, Case No. 2:14-cv2581 AC P, 2015 WL 4637962, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2015); see also Driver v. ADA 1824 

Panels, Case No. 1:19-cv-1718 SAB PC, 2019 WL 9100333, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2019) 

(“Plaintiff’s allegations regarding unlawful Keyhea orders, forced medication, and painful 

injections are too vague and conclusory to establish that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the following United States District Court cases: (1) Youngblood v. State 

of Cal., Case No. 2:05-cv-00727-LKK-DAD (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on September 11, 2006 for failure to state a 

claim); (2) Youngblood v. Chico Parole Outpatient Clinic, Case No. 2:11-cv-02159-GGH (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on 

October 21, 2011 for failure to state a claim); (3) Youngblood v. State of Cal., Case No. 4:11-cv-04064-PJH (N.D. 

Cal.) (dismissed on March 16, 2012 for failure to state a claim); (4) Youngblood v. Lamarque, Case No. 4:12-cv04423-PJH (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on February 4, 2013 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); (5) Youngblood 

v. Feather Falls Casino, Case No. 4:13-cv-01282-PJH (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on February 28, 2013 as frivolous and 

for failure to state a claim); (6) Youngblood v. Evans, Case No. 4:13-cv-02097-PJH (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on May 

14, 2013 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); (7) Youngblood v. Warden, Case No. 4:13-cv-04366-PJH (N.D. 

Cal.) (dismissed on November 12, 2013 for failure to state a claim); (8) Youngblood v. Clark, Case No. 1:15-cv01746-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 15, 2017 for failure to state a claim); (9) Youngblood v. PBSP 

Warden, Case No. 3:16-cv-07119-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed on August 21, 2017 for failure to state a claim and as 

barred by the statute of limitations).

The Court also takes judicial notice of the following United States Court of Appeals cases: (1) Youngblood 

v. Lori DiCarlo, Case No. 16-56366 (9th Cir.) (dismissed on January 17, 2017 as frivolous); (2) Youngblood v. 

Briggs, Case No. 16-16626 (9th Cir.) (dismissed on April 17, 2017 as frivolous); (3) Youngblood v. Allen, Case No. 

14-15920 (9th Cir.) (dismissed on April 20, 2017 as frivolous).

Case 1:24-cv-00013-KES-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/09/24 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

serious physical harm at the time his complaint was filed.”), rep. and reco. adopted, 2020 WL 

3451518 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020). Furthermore, as it appears the medications are being 

administered pursuant to a court order, (see ECF No. 1, p. 6), and assuming that the procedural 

requirements for the forced medication order were met, Plaintiff’s allegations would be unlikely 

to meet the standard for imminent danger. See Kulas v. Valdez, 159 F.3d 453, 455–56 (9th Cir. 

1998) (noting that forced treatment can only be justified if a neutral fact finder determines that the 

medication is medically and circumstantially appropriate; prisoners have the right to be present 

and to be heard at proceedings at which this decision is reached).

Finally, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations that various named and unnamed staff at his 

institution are poisoning him with drugs and chemicals inserted into his meals, beverages, water, 

and air vents to be frivolous and therefore insufficient to support a finding of imminent danger.

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1057 n. 11 (“assertions of imminent danger of less 

obviously injurious practices may be rejected as overly speculative or fanciful, when they are 

supported by implausible or untrue allegations that the ongoing practice has produced past harm”) 

(citations omitted); Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Courts also deny 

leave to proceed IFP when a prisoner’s claims of imminent danger are conclusory or ridiculous.”) 

(citations omitted); Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003) (refusing to find 

“imminent danger” based on “conclusory assertions that defendants were trying to kill [the 

inmate] by forcing him to work in extreme weather conditions despite his blood pressure 

condition”); K’napp v. Beard, 2014 WL 584404, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2014), adopted, 2014 

WL 1034000 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (conclusory allegations of “retaliation, harassment, 

indifference, discrimination, oppression and abuse” insufficient); Holz v. McFadden, 2010 WL 

3069745, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2010), adopted, 2010 WL 3069740 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010) 

(“[M]erely alleging that the government is going to murder you is not enough to pass through the 

gateway of the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g).”).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

///

Case 1:24-cv-00013-KES-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/09/24 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Further, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $405.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this 

action.

* * *

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the 

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00013-KES-BAM Document 8 Filed 01/09/24 Page 4 of 4