Bleu Blaze Donahue v. Oregon DOJ, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION BLEU BLAZE DONAHUE, Case. No. 6:26-cv-1041-MC Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER v. OREGON DOJ, et al., Defendants. _____________________________ MCSHANE, Judge: Pro se plaintiff Bleu Blaze Donahue seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.

This court has discretion in deciding whether to grant in forma pauperis status. See O'Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims the litigant seeks to pursue are not frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); O'Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617.

This is at least the eighth federal action Plaintiff has filed to date. 1:25-cv-01174-AA; 1:25- cv-01175-CL; 6:260cv000152-AP; 6:26-cv-00501-MTK; 6:26-cv-00747-AP; 6:26-cv-748-MC; 6:26-cv-981-MC. Nearly all have been dismissed, with prejudice, at the pleading stage. All relate, in some way, to Plaintiff’s state court criminal case where Plaintiff plead guilty to Luring a Minor and Online Corruption of a Child charges. In every case but one, Plaintiff generally alleges that his plea was coerced and there was some vague conspiracy against him.

This latest case is no different. Plaintiff alleges a vast RICO conspiracy. As in his other cases, Plaintiff also names 25 or so Defendants. These Defendants, as is typical in Plaintiff’s cases, consist of just about everyone involved in Plaintiff’s state court and prior federal cases. Judges, court staff, private investigators, attorneys, etc. Generally, if you interacted with Plaintiff in any way in his previous cases, there is a high likelihood that Plaintiff will later allege that you were involved in some vast conspiracy against him.

This latest complaint takes issue with the Oregon State Bar and Governor’s Office apparently not taking Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the conspiracy in his state criminal case seriously enough. As with his other cases, Plaintiff does not appreciate that Judge Aiken dismissed one of his earlier cases with prejudice. Plaintiff alleges the FBI is also involved in this conspiracy, for failing to investigate Plaintiff’s calls regarding the alleged conspiracy. “Despite actual knowledge of the conspiracy, the FBI took no action to protect Plaintiff or investigate the enterprise.” Compl. ¶ 27. So too with an Assistant United States Attorney in Eugene. Plaintiff argues that his arrest on a Failure to Appear warrant “was fraudulent.” Compl. ¶ 30.

As in his other cases, the gist of Plaintiff’s allegations is that his state criminal proceedings were/are fundamentally unfair. “On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff was coerced into a guilty plea under threat of 15-24 years in prison.” Compl. ¶ 34. “Defendant Steve H. Hoddle presided over the plea hearing. He heard direct evidence that the FTA warrant was non-factual and that Plaintiff’s signature proved his presence. He did nothing.” Compl. ¶ 37. Plaintiff seeks “$300,000,000,000 (three hundred billion dollars)” in compensatory damages, trebled to nine hundred billion dollars.

Plaintiff asks this Court for “an order expunging the coerced guilty plea from Plaintiff’s record.”

As Plaintiff has been told multiple times by multiple federal judges, his claims are all barred by a number of abstention doctrines including Younger and Heck v. Humphrey. Despite these detailed opinions pointing out the significant, fatal, hurdles Plaintiff faces, Plaintiff simply files a new action once his earlier action is dismissed. Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim, Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice. On multiple previous occasions, the Court explicitly warned Plaintiff, he is straddling very close to the line beyond which the Court would find him a vexatious litigant. In this eighth action alleging basically the same vast conspiracy, Plaintiff has now crossed that line. The Court understands that Plaintiff challenges the validity of his guilty plea in state court. The remedy, however, as this Court previously instructed Plaintiff, is to use the state appellate courts to fix that error. Filing additional federal actions vaguely alleging a vast conspiracy, when those claims have already been dismissed with prejudice, demonstrates an intent to abuse the judicial system.

Because numerous previous warnings have utterly failed to deter Plaintiff from filing frivolous actions, the Court now finds Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant. All filings from Plaintiff Bleu Blaze Donahue shall be reviewed by this Court and ordered filed only if such filings are deemed not frivolous or repetitive. The deputy clerks are instructed not to open any new cases filed by Mr. Donahue unless authorized by a judge and should return all rejected filings to Mr. Donahue. This order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until the court directs otherwise.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of June 2026. _____/s/ Michael McShane ______ Michael McShane United States District Judge

1 This Order does not apply to any filings Mr. Donahue may make in any of his currently active cases.