ANTHONY MILLS v. ARLENE BLUTH

2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Feb 20, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ANTHONY MILLS, No. 2:26-CV-00090-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. ARLENE BLUTH, 11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint on February 20, 2026. ECF No. 1. A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that, as relevant here, is frivolous, seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief, and fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Having 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 Defendant is frivolous, barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity and fails to state a claim.

3 Plaintiff has filed an identical complaint against Defendant—a New York state judge—in at least four other district courts this week. See Mills v. Bluth, 2:26-cv-105 (M.D. Al. Feb. 18, 2026), ECF No. 1; Mills v. Bluth, 1:26-cv-45 (N.D. Fl. Feb. 19, 2016), ECF No. 1; Mills v. Bluth, 1:26-cv-21079 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 18, 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. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), no basis to overcome Defendant’s judicial immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991), and no allegations other than a threadbare conclusion that Defendant “conspired with individuals in depriving due process rights” by failing to dismiss a certain lawsuit 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.

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 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