Donahue

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

BLEU BLAZE DONAHUE, Case. No. 6:26-cv-981-MC

Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

v.

GOOGLE, LLC, 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 seventh 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. 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.

In this latest case, Plaintiff names Google as a Defendant. Plaintiff also names 25 or so

other 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.

Although Plaintiff names a plethora of Defendants, only one Defendant is alleged to have

actually done something here. Specifically, Google provided an “AI Overview feature” indicating

that Plaintiff was arrested can charged with online sexual corruption of a child and luring a minor.

Compl. ¶ 24. Reading the Complaint in a liberal fashion, Plaintiff alleges that Google libeled

Plaintiff by omitting the fact that Plaintiff had a pending RICO civil action challenging the

conspiracy that resulted in Plaintiff’s guilty plea and omitting the fact that Plaintiff had pending

appeals. Plaintiff also takes issue with the AI Overview about the civil case that this Court

previously dismissed with prejudice. When searching for that case, the overview provides:

Donahue v. Kramer et al (Case 6:26-cv-00748) is a 2026 federal case in the Oregon

District Court, dismissed with prejudice on April 20, 2026, because the plaintiff,

Bleu Blaze Donahue, failed to state a claim. Judge Michael J. McShane presiding,

the court denied in forma pauperis status, noting the case, often stemming from

state criminal proceedings, was among several filed by the Plaintiff. Vexatious

litigant warning.

Compl. ¶ 28.

As with the other overview, Plaintiff takes issue with the summary omitting the fact that

Plaintiff appealed that Judgment, Plaintiff alleged an obstruction of justice, and that the Court did

no actually find Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant. Compl. ¶ 29. According to Plaintiff, “The AI

Overview for Donahue v. Kramer is false and misleading because it presents the case as finally

dismissed with prejudice while concealing Plaintiff’s pending appeal, which, if successful, would

reverse the dismissal.” Compl. ¶ 30.

Plaintiff fails to state a claim. The AI Overview provided just that; an overview or

summary. There is no right or legal duty forcing the summary to include every piece of information

available. Additionally, the overviews alleged here are, without doubt, factually correct. There is

nothing false about the summaries.

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.1 As the Court previously

warned Plaintiff, he is straddling very close to the line beyond which the Court would find him a

vexatious litigant. The Court understands that Plaintiff challenges the validity of his guilty plea in

state court. The remedy, however, 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2026.

_____/s/ Michael McShane ______

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

1 Although Plaintiff alleges a vast RICO conspiracy involving tens of Defendants, there are no specific factual

allegations regarding any other Defendant. Additionally, the Court may view Plaintiff’s numerous other actions,

which also allege a vast RICO conspiracy lacking any specific factual allegations, in determining that amendment

would be futile here.