Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

ANTHONY MILLS v. ARLENE BLUTH

District Court, E.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:26-cv-00090

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1

2 FILED IN THE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3 Feb 20, 2026

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 ANTHONY MILLS,

No. 2:26-CV-00090-MKD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

9 v.

10 ARLENE BLUTH,

11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint on February 20, 2026. ECF
13 No. 1. A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis
14 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a
15 complaint that, as relevant here, is frivolous, seeks damages from a defendant who
16 is immune from such relief, and fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B);
17 see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Having
18 reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d
19 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiff’s claim against
20

1 Defendant is frivolous, barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity and fails to
2 state a claim.

3 Plaintiff has filed an identical complaint against Defendant—a New York
4 state judge—in at least four other district courts this week. See Mills v. Bluth,
5 2:26-cv-105 (M.D. Al. Feb. 18, 2026), ECF No. 1; Mills v. Bluth, 1:26-cv-45 (N.D.

6 Fl. Feb. 19, 2016), ECF No. 1; Mills v. Bluth, 1:26-cv-21079 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 18,
7 2026), ECF No. 1; Mills v. Bluth, 1:26-cv-104 (D.R.I. Feb. 19, 2026), ECF No. 1.

8 Plaintiff has identified no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v.
9 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), no basis to overcome

10 Defendant’s judicial immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991), and no
11 allegations other than a threadbare conclusion that Defendant “conspired with
12 individuals in depriving due process rights” by failing to dismiss a certain lawsuit

13 in New York, see ECF No. 1 at 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

15 1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B).

17 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, is
18 DENIED as moot.

19

20

1 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal
2 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any

3 arguable basis in law or fact.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
5 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file.

6 DATED February 20, 2026.

7 s/Mary K. Dimke

MARY K. DIMKE

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20