MILLS v. BLUTH

Page 1 of 7
NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ANTHONY MILLS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-45-RH-MJF
ARLENE BLUTH,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Anthony Mills filed a three-sentence complaint against
Defendant in at least three districts, including the Northern District of
Florida. 	The 	undersigned 	preliminarily 	screened 	Mills’s 	complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because the facts in the complaint fail
to state a facially plausible claim for relief against the named Defendant,
and because Plaintiff has abused the judicial process, the District Court
should dismiss this civil action.
BACKGROUND
On February 19, 2026, Mills commenced this civil action with a one-
page complaint. Mills alleges:
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
1. Defendant conspired with individuals in depriving due process
rights, 	Defendant 	failed 	to 	dismiss 	100269/2023, 	causing
unreasonable costs to the parties,
2. This Court has jurisdiction under federal law,
3. Plaintiff demands jury trial and $1 Million against Defendant.
Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1–3.
Because Mills’s complaint bore similar allegations to four complaints
recently filed by prolific filers, the undersigned reviewed court records
available on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (PACER) database. On February 17, 2026, Mills filed the exact
same, deficient complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama. Mills v. Bluth, No. 2:26-cv-105 (M.D. Ala). One
day later, on February 18, 2026, Mills filed the same deficient complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Mills
v. Bluth, No. 1:26-cv-21070 (S.D. Fla.).
D ISCUSSION
A. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915 Screening Standard
Mills is proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, the District Court
is required to review Mills’s complaint and dismiss any claim that is
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
B. 	Mills Fails to State a Plausible Claim For Relief
A civil complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Determining whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted is governed by the standard set forth in Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997).
The District Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations of the complaint and must consider all reasonable inferences
derived from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994). To survive
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
Mills’s allegations consists of three sentences, which are nothing
more than “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me” accusations. Doc. 1 ¶¶
1–3. Mills provides no factual enhancement to support his conclusion that
Defendant conspired in violation of due process. Mills’s vague allegations
do not include basic facts such as what happened, when it happened, where
it happened, and how Mills suffered any injury because of Defendant’s acts
or 	omissions. 	Mills’s 	complaint, 	therefore, 	violates 	Rule 	8’s 	pleading
standard. For this reason alone, the District Court should dismiss this civil
action.
C. 	Mills Has Abused the Judicial Process
There is also a second, independent reason to dismiss this civil action:
this civil action is malicious.
“[A] 	plaintiff’s duplicative 	complaint 	is an 	abuse 	of the 	judicial
process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021); accord McWilliams v.
Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d
994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.
1988); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In just three
days, Mills has filed the same deficient complaint against Defendant in
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
three federal district courts. Mills’s complaint does not include any facts
that suggest the Northern District of Florida is an appropriate venue for
this civil action. Mills lists a return address in Guam, his complaint was
postmarked in “New York NY,” and it appears that he is suing a New York
state judge.
Importantly, within the past month, the Northern District of Florida
has received four substantially similar complaints against New York state
judges:
• 	Adams v. Jimenez, No. 1:26-cv-23-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla.);
• 	Alexander v. Hill-Kearse, No. 1:26-cv-25-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.);
• 	Williams v. Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-4-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla.); and
• 	Sullivan v. Pacheco, No. 4:26-cv-45-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.).
In each of these cases, the pro se plaintiff failed to provide the court with a
valid mailing address. As one court noted, it is becoming “increasingly
obvious these cases were filed by one person, or a group of people, using
aliases.” 	See 	Adams 	v. 	Jimenez, 	No. 	1:26-cv-24, 	ECF 	No. 	3, 	Order
Dismissing Complaint on Initial Screening (D. Wyo.) (filed Jan. 22, 2026).
In light of the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that Mills’s duplicative
filings were intended to harass rather than initiate legitimate litigation
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
against Defendant. As such, Mills’s conduct is an abuse of the judicial
process, and the District Court should dismiss this civil action because of
its maliciousness.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS 	with 	prejudice, 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915,
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a plausible claim for relief; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 19th day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed
findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. A party who
fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and
recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to 	challenge 	on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:26-cv-00045-RH-MJF Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 7