USA v. Yeargan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAMUEL ADAM MALACHI YEARGAN,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:26-mj-7
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
ORDER
This case is before the Court upon the Government’s Motion for Order Authorizing
Administration of TB Test (Doc. #7) and Defendant Samuel Yeargan’s Objection to Government’s
Motion for Order Authorizing Administration of TB Test (Doc. #9).
On January 7, 2026, Defendant Yeargan appeared before the Court and was remanded to
the custody of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) pending determination of his
competency. He was placed at the Shelby County Jail, an entity that provides contract services for
the USMS. The USMS requires all detainees in their custody to undergo a tuberculosis skin test
to maintain the safety of inmates and staff. 	See USMS Policy Directive 9.42, Prisoner
Tuberculosis Screening (Eff. Jan. 13, 2020).
The Government moves for an order authorizing administration of a tuberculosis skin test
on Defendant Yeargan against his will, if necessary, for the purposes of determining whether he
has contracted or been exposed to tuberculosis. 	(Doc. #7, PageID #22). 	Additionally, the
Government “requests an order that, should Mr. Yeargan physically refuse to submit to the test,
the United States Marshals Service and employees of the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office shall be
Case: 3:26-mj-00007-PBS Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
permitted to take such reasonable steps, including reasonable physical restrain of the defendant, as
may be necessary to administer the test.” Id.
Defendant Yeargan opposes the Government’s Motion. (Doc. #9). Defendant’s stand-by
counsel, who Defendant refuses to communicate with, asserts, “based on Mr. Yeargan’s expressed
concerns concerning government medical experimentation and implementation of various medical
devices involving his person, it is clear that Mr. Yeargan does object to any invasive medical
procedure, including this proposed TB test.” Id. at 28. Moreover, counsel notes that Defendant
has “expressed specific religious persecution,” reporting during his competency evaluation, “I’m
a blood born Christian, I believe it is retaliation, conservative Christian targeting. I’m filing a
motion for conflict of interest against my attorney for religious reasons.” Id. Counsel construes
Defendant’s objection to the tuberculosis test as rooted in First Amendment religious freedom. Id.
The Government bears of the burden of proving the necessity of the tuberculosis test.
However, “[i]t is beyond dispute that tuberculosis represents a public health threat to both inmates
and prison personnel.” Hasenmeier-McCarthy v. Rose, 986 F. Supp. 464, 467 (S.D. Ohio 1998);
United States v. Dumonde, No. 2:08-CR-173-LSC-TMP, 2008 WL 11391649, at *2 (N.D. Ala.
Sept. 11, 2008) (“[T]here can be little question that tuberculosis presents a serious public health
hazard that is especially dangerous in the institutional context.”). 	To prevent the spread of
tuberculosis—a highly contagious disease—and to protect inmates and staff, the Government has
a compelling interest in screening prisoners for the disease. See Darby v. Schuetzle, No. 1:09-CV-
004, 2009 WL 700631, at *5 (D.N.D. Mar. 13, 2009) (“there is widespread agreement that penal
institutions have a compelling interest in stopping its spread”) (collecting cases).
Insofar as Defendant asserts that his First Amendment right to religious freedom is
implicated by the testing, “that right must yield to the compelling interest the [USMS] has in
Case: 3:26-mj-00007-PBS Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
preventing the spread of a serious disease among its inmate population.” Dumonde, No. 2:08-CR-
173-LSC-TMP, 2008 WL 11391649, at *2. 	Indeed, courts have held that the involuntary
administration of tuberculosis testing does not offend the Constitution. See Darby, No. 1:09-CV-
004, 2009 WL 700631, at *6 (citations omitted); Hasenmeier-McCarthy, 986 F. Supp. at 468;
Dunn v. Zenk, No. CIV.A. 107CV2007-RLV, 2007 WL 2904170, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 1, 2007);
Stevens v. Cain, No. CV 14-204-JWD-RLB, 2017 WL 2389978, at *5 (M.D. La. May 23, 2017),
report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2385333 (M.D. La. June 1, 2017) (“while the
plaintiff’s First Amendment free exercise rights might be substantially burdened by forced T.B.
testing, it is widely accepted that the prison has a compelling interest in preventing the spread of
tuberculosis ….”).
Based on the foregoing, the Government’s Motion for Order Authorizing Administration
of TB Test (Doc. #7) is hereby GRANTED. 	Accordingly, the United States Marshals Service
and/or Shelby County Sheriff’s Office employees are hereby authorized to administer a
tuberculosis test on Defendant Yeargan, against Defendant’s will, if necessary, for the purpose of
determining whether he has contracted or been exposed to tuberculosis. In the event Defendant
Yeargan physically refuses to submit to the test, the United States Marshals Service and/or Shelby
County Sheriff’s Office employees shall take such reasonable steps, including physical restraint
of Defendant, as may be necessary to administer the test.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 14, 2026 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:26-mj-00007-PBS Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/14/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>