Youngblood v. State of Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
JIMMIE YOUNGBLOOD, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-CV-11132-AK
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
__________________________________________)
ORDER
KELLEY, D.J.
Plaintiff Jimmie Youngblood, an inmate in custody of the Florida State Prison in
Rainford, Florida, filed a pro se Complaint against the State of Florida. [Dkt. 1]. In the four-
page, handwritten Complaint, Youngblood describes himself as a “mental health inmate housed
in the Florida State Prison who is having a mental health breakdown.” [Id. at 2]. He complains,
among other things, that the Florida Department of Correction “is refusing to give [Youngblood]
mental health treatment.” [Id.]. He alleges the violation of his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and state prison policies. [Id. at 2]. In conclusion, Youngblood writes as
follows: “Please contact the Florida Dept. of Corr. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corr. Mr. Rick
Dixon because this matter will [unintelligible] when I get home [and he is] serious [that he]
need[s] mental health treatment.” [Id. at 2].
Because Youngblood is a prisoner plaintiff, this action is subject to preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A authorizes federal courts to dismiss a complaint
if the claims therein lack an arguable basis in law or in fact, fail to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Case 1:26-cv-11132-AK Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (screening). In conducting this review, the Court liberally construes
Youngblood’s Complaint because he is proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972).
Here, even with a generous reading of the Complaint, it does not meet the screening
requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915A. The Court is without personal jurisdiction over the
Defendant State of Florida. Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s “power to require the parties
to obey its [orders].” Hannon v. Beard, 524 F.3d 275, 279 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Daynard v.
Ness, Motley, Lodaholt, Richardson, & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir. 2002)). A plaintiff
consents to the personal jurisdiction of a court by bringing suit in that court. See Adam v.
Saenger, 303 U.S. 59, 67 (1938). However, as to a defendant, a court is precluded from asserting
jurisdiction unless “the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980).
Here, the facts of this case have no connection to Massachusetts other than the fact that
Youngblood filed his Complaint in this federal court. There are no facts suggesting that the
Defendant had any contact with Massachusetts such that it would anticipate being sued in federal
court in Massachusetts to respond to events taking place outside Massachusetts. In the absence
of such allegations, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant against whom
Plaintiff seeks relief.
In addition, a search of the federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) service reveals that Youngblood filed a similar complaint in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 23, 2026. See Youngblood v. State of
Florida, No. 26-CV-00277-JEP-SJH (pending).
Case 1:26-cv-11132-AK Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 6, 2026 	/s/ Angel Kelley
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-11132-AK Document 3 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 3