Collins v. Fang et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUSTIN COLLINS
v. 	Civil No. 26-cv-209-LM-AJ
VANESSA FANG, JAVIER E. ORTIZ,
AND ELYSSA O. SLUTZKY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Justin Collins, proceeding pro se without counsel, filed a Complaint (Doc. No.
1) in forma pauperis in this court. The Complaint is before the court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2), the
court construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). The court may dismiss claims if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant
is immune from the relief sought, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief might be
granted, or the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). To
determine if a pleading states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court takes as true the
facts asserted in the Complaint, and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, strips away
the legal conclusions, and considers whether the complaint states a claim that is plausible on its
face. Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Discussion
The same plaintiff filed the same Complaint against the same three defendants asserting
the same (scant) facts and legal conclusions in more than twenty federal district courts as of the
date of this Report and Recommendation. The District of Rhode Island accurately describes the
Complaint as follows:
Case 1:26-cv-00209-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
This plaintiff, who purports to be a resident of Honolulu, HI, contends that the three
named defendants, who are not identified in any way beyond their names, “delayed the
ruling.” That is the sum total of information about the case offered and no federal
question is identified. While the plaintiff claims diversity jurisdiction, he does not
disclose the addresses (or states of residence) of the defendants . . . . The plaintiff bears
the burden of showing jurisdiction, and here there has been no real effort to do so. While
the Court would ordinarily extend an opportunity to amend, in this case it does not: there
are too many defects and it is evident to the Court that this is a “ghost” complaint, not
brought by a real person who suffered a real injury as a result of a real violation of federal
or any other law. The case is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) . . . .
Mar. 13, 2026 Text Order, Collins v. Fang, No. 1:26-cv-00152-MRD-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13,
2026) (citations omitted).
The same Complaint here warrants similar disposition upon preliminary review. The
facts alleged fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction and would not be deemed sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, or to state any claim upon which relief can be
granted, even if jurisdiction could be deemed to exist. Accordingly, the district judge should
dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety,
without prejudice. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection period may
be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are subject to
review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on
appeal.’” Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations
omitted).
_________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 27, 2026
cc: 	Justin Collins, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00209-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 2