# Bluth

> District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384860

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony Mills v. Arlene Bluth
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384860

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANTHONY MILLS, Case No. 2:26-cv-00516-TLN-CSK (PS)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
14 ARLENE BLUTH,
(ECF Nos. 1, 2)
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Anthony Mills is representing himself in this action and seeks leave to
18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s
19 application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing.
20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request.
21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis
23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to
24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a
25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,
26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In
2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual
3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and
4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490
5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960
6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal).
9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d
11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does
12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007);
13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough
15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the
19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be
20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80
21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996).
22 II. DISCUSSION
23 The Complaint consists of three sentences. Compl. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint
24 appears to allege Defendant Arlene Bluth conspired to deprive Plaintiff of due process
25 rights by “fail[ing] to dismiss 100269/2023, causing unreasonable cost to the parties.”
26 See id. at ¶ 1. The Complaint provides no further information on Defendant’s identity,
27 Plaintiff’s relationship to Defendant, nor further information on the matter described as
28 100269/2023. See id. The Complaint consists of three sentences. See id.
1 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
2 The Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of a claim as required
3 by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In order to give fair notice of the claims and the
4 grounds on which they rest, a plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
5 particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims. See Kimes v.
6 Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals it
7 consists of “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements” of her causes of action and fails to
8 state a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
9 B. Failure to State a Claim
10 The Complaint appears to allege a claim for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
11 under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). To state a cause of action under Section 1985(3), the
12 complaint must allege “(1) a conspiracy, (2) to deprive any person or a class of persons
13 of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws,
14 (3) an act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) a personal
15 injury, property damage or a deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United
16 States.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.3d 637, 641 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Griffin v.
17 Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-103 (1971)). Unlike 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires a
18 showing that a defendant acted under the color of state law, Section 1985(3) reaches
19 private conspiracies. Griffin, 403 U.S., at 641.
20 Plaintiff’s only allegation against Defendant is that she “conspired with individuals
21 in depriving due process rights… [by] fail[ing] to dismiss 100269/2023, causing
22 unreasonable cost to the parties.” Compl. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff’s allegation is conclusory and a
23 “threadbare recital of the elements” of his cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
24 Further, it is unclear whether Defendant showed a “[racial] or class-based, invidiously
25 discriminatory animus,” behind her actions. See Gillespie, 629 F. 3d, at 641. Therefore,
26 the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s civil rights conspiracy cause of action with leave to amend
27 to the extent Plaintiff can allege additional facts to support his claim.
28 / / /
1 C. Leave to Amend
2 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se
3 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and
4 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). In
5 light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable that Plaintiff could
6 allege additional facts to state claims under Section 1985(3), the Court finds it
7 appropriate to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the Complaint. See Lopez, 203
8 F.3d at 1130-31 (indicating that prior to dismissal, the court is to tell the plaintiff of
9 deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure – if it appears at all
10 possible the defects can be corrected).
11 If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, this new pleading shall allege facts
12 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction and must contain a short and plain
13 statement of Plaintiff's claim. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in
14 sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than
15 the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being
16 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of
17 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help
18 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's
19 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at
20 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
21 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess
22 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th
23 Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally
24 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain
25 defendants”). The amended complaint must not require the Court to spend its time
26 “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id.
27 at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare
28 lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179.
1 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in
2 || order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an
3 || amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a
4 || general rule, an amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the
5 || amended complaint is filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any
6 || function in the case. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012).
7 | Ul. ©CONCLUSION
8 In accordance with the above, IT |S ORDERED that:
9 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
10 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; and
11 3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended
12 complaint that complies with the instructions provided above. If Plaintiff
13 fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend that
14 this action be dismissed.
15
16 | Dated: May 27, 2026 C i s \U
7 CHI SOO KIM
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19 || 7, mill.0516.26.screening
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11384860. Public record. Not legal advice.