Collins v. Fang et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ABILENE DIVISION
JUSTIN COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
VANESSA FANG, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 1:26-CV-00116-H-BU
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Justin Collins initiated this civil action against Defendants Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O Slutzky, and Javier E Ortiz on March 16, 2026. Dkt. No. 1. The case was referred
to the undersigned under Special Order No. 3-251 and Collins has not consented to the
undersigned exercising this Court’s full jurisdiction. Before this Court is Collins’s Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 4. For reasons discussed below, the
undersigned finds Collins’s claims are duplicative and malicious; the undersigned therefore
RECOMMENDS that this civil action be DISMISSED with prejudice and Collins’s Motion
to Proceed IFP, Dkt. No. 4, be DENIED as moot.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Justin Collins filed a three-sentence complaint against Defendants Vanessa
Fang, Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz (“Defendants”) on March 16, 2026. Dkt. No.
1. Specifically, the Complaint alleges in full, as follows:
1. Defendants delayed the ruling,
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

2
2. This case is brought on diversity,
3. Plaintiff demands damages over $75,000.
Id. at 1. Plaintiff provides a mailing address in Honolulu, Hawaii, although the envelope in
which the complaint arrived bears a New York City postmark. Id. at 2.
The undersigned takes judicial notice that the foregoing allegations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint and the parties involved are identical to other complaints filed by this same
Plaintiff during the same time frame in a large number of U.S. District Courts, as set forth
in the following chart, infra:
Date
Filed
Case Style Case No. U.S. Dist.
Ct.
3/11/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-11199 D. Mass.
3/11/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
8:26-cv-1058 D. Md.
3/12/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
3:26-cv-196 W.D.N.C.
3/12/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-152 D.R.I.
3/12/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-36 W.D. Va.
3/13/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
2:26-cv-197 S.D.W.V.
3/13/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-250 M.D.N.C.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-132 N.D. Ind.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-849 W.D.
Mich.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
4:26-cv-287 E.D. Ark
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-1101 C.D. Ill.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-506 S.D. Ind.
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

3
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-38 W.D. Ky.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
2:26-cv-585 E.D. La.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-830 W.D. La.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
4:26-cv-372 E.D. Mo.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
3:26-cv-53 N.D.
Miss.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-209 D.N.H.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-98 E.D. TX.
3/16/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
1:26-cv-116 N.D. TX.
3/17/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
4:26-cv-23 W.D. TX.
3/17/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
2:26-cv-51 E.D. Tenn.
3/17/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
3:26-cv-313 M.D.
Tenn.
3/17/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
2:26-cv-261 E.D. VA.
3/18/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
3:26-cv-296 M.D. La.
3/19/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
3:26-cv-236 W.D. Wis.
3/24/2026 Justin Collins v. Vanessa Fang,
Elyssa O. Slutzky, and Javier E. Ortiz
6:26-cv-1266 D.S.C.
While it is wholly unclear from the record who the named Defendants are or their
role in the purported events giving rise to this civil action, the undersigned takes judicial
notice that Defendant Vanessa Fang was appointed as a Judge of the Housing Court, Civil
Court of the City of New York, New York County, New York, in 2021; Defendant Elyssa
O. Slutzky was appointed as a Judge of the New York City Civil Court, Housing Court,
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

4
Kings County, New York, in 2024; and Javier E. Ortiz was appointed as a Judge of the
Civil Court of the City of New York, Brooklyn Civil Part, Brooklyn, Kings County, New
York, in 2024.
Another U.S. District Court has already dismissed Plaintiff’s identical complaint
sua sponte. See Collins v. Fang, 1:26-cv-152 (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2026). In that case, District
Judge Melissa R. DuBose entered a text order stating as follows, in full:
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, and his own address is not recognized by the
United States Postal Service as a legitimate address. The plaintiff bears the
burden of showing jurisdiction, and here there has been no real effort to do
so. Smith v. Roger Williams Univ. Law Sch., No. 1:21-cv-133-PJB-AKJ,
2023 WL 3303866, *1 (D.R.I. May 8, 2023). 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) and the In Forma Pauperis Motion (ECF No. 2) is
DENIED as moot.
Id.
The undersigned further takes judicial notice that this case is strikingly similar to
another civil action recently adjudicated by this Court, see Mills v. Bluth, 1:26-cv-077, at
Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026). That case involved a similar “shotgun” filing of a
barebones complaint across numerous U.S. District Courts vaguely naming New York state
judges as defendants. There thus appears to be an emerging pattern of what District Judge
DuBose terms “ghost” complaints emerging from an unnamed source in New York.
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

5
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that Collins plead: (1) a
short and plain statement of this Court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short, plain statement of
Collins’s claim; and (3) a statement of what Collins wants this Court to provide him in
relief. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court shall dismiss a case at any time if the court
determines that: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue, or (2) the action is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
III. ANALYSIS
First, dismissal is proper because 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).
Second, none of the parties appear to have any connection to the Northern District of Texas
or the Abilene division, suggesting that venue is improper in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b). Third, Collins has filed identical barebones claims in multiple other courts—27
to be exact—rendering his suit duplicative. A plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse
of the judicial process and is properly dismissed as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019,
1021 (5th Cir. 1988). Fourth, Collins’s pleadings do not comply with Rule 8(a) and are so
barebones that they fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; rendering dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) proper. Fifth, dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is also proper
because the Defendants have judicial immunity and therefore, he seeks $75,000 from
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

6
Defendants who are immune from suit. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12 (1991).
It is therefore appropriate to dismiss his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
(ii), and (iii).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS
this case WITH PREJUDICE as duplicative and malicious and DENY Collins’s IFP
Motion, Dkt. No. 4, as moot. Additionally, considering his recent filing spree, Collins
should be WARNED that if he persists in filing frivolous or baseless actions, or actions
over which the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court may impose monetary sanctions and bar
him from filing any future lawsuits. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(2), (c)(1).
V. RIGHT TO OBJECT
A copy of these Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these Find-
ings, Conclusions, and Recommendations must file specific written objections within four-
teen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
the objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the
magistrate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations where the disputed de-
termination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the
briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objec-
tions will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions
of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

7
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417
(5th Cir. 1996).
ORDERED this 27th day of March 2026.
JOHN R. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00116-H-BU Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>