Wentworth v. Southwest Airlines
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint filed by a plaintiff who had previously filed a duplicative action against the same defendant that was closed for failure to amend. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the motion to appoint counsel, and dismissed the case with prejudice as frivolous.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis granted“The Court again grants Ms. Wentworth’s request to proceed IFP.” | unsure The order does not recite the specific financial facts required to establish IFP status, but the plaintiff's prior history in the consolidated cases suggests she has already been granted IFP status, making this a procedural formality. |
Motion to Appoint Counsel denied“The Court also finds there are not exceptional circumstances warranting a request for pro bono counsel.” | agree with court The court cites Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am. for the proposition that exceptional circumstances are required. Given the frivolous nature of the claim, the denial is consistent with the law. |
Case dismissed with prejudice“Because this case is duplicative of Ms. Wentworth’s prior action against Southwest Airlines, the Court concludes it is frivolous and dismisses it with prejudice.” | agree with court The court applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and cites Cato v. United States for the proposition that an IFP complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims is frivolous. The record shows a prior case (21-cv-00702) was closed for failure to amend, and this new case raises the same claims against the same defendant. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate for a frivolous IFP action. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for dismissing an IFP action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Cato) to support the dismissal of a duplicative claim. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a screening order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incomplete record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 DAWN WENTWORTH, Case No. 21-cv-01943-BAS-AGS 13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14 15 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 16 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 17 Defendant.
(2) DENYING MOTION TO 18 APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3); 19 AND 20 (3) DISMISSING CASE 22 On April 16, 2021, Ms. Dawn Wentworth, on her own behalf and on behalf of her 23 two children, Yaw Appiah and Journee Hudson, filed 74 complaints in this federal district 24 court. Many of these complaints are duplicative, suing the same defendants with the same 25 allegations. The Court issued an order consolidating most of the cases. (Case No. 21-cv- 26 00757-BAS-AGS, Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No. 5.) The Court also issued an order 27 setting a hearing to discuss Ms. Wentworth’s many lawsuits. (Id., ECF No. 8.) Ms. 28 Wentworth did not appear at the hearing. (Id., ECF No. 10.) 1 One of the cases the Court did not consolidate is Wentworth v. Southwest Airlines 2 HQ, No. 21-cv-00702-BAS-AGS. In that case, the Court granted Ms. Wentworth’s Motion 3 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed the Complaint because it did not state 4 a claim. (No. 21-cv-00702-BAS-AGS, ECF No. 4.) The Court ordered Ms. Wentworth to 5 file an Amended Complaint by September 3, 2021. (ECF No. 4.) She did not, so the Court 6 closed the case. 7 Ms. Wentworth now files this action, seeking $13 million in damages from 8 Southwest Airlines, claiming she was injured by a “Southwest supervisor.” (ECF No. 1.) 9 Ms. Wentworth also states: “This case was previously filed 4/2021 with the U.S. District 10 Court.” (Id.) She moves to proceed IFP and also requests appointment of counsel. (ECF 11 Nos. 2, 3.) 12 The Court again grants Ms. Wentworth’s request to proceed IFP. Under 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court must dismiss an action where the plaintiff is proceeding IFP 14 if the court determines that the action “is frivolous or malicious.” An IFP complaint “is 15 frivolous if it has ‘no arguable basis in fact or law.’” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 16 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir.1984)). In 17 addition, an IFP complaint “that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims” is 18 subject to dismissal as frivolous. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th 19 Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.1988)) (construing 20 former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which then governed dismissal for frivolousness). 21 Because this case is duplicative of Ms. Wentworth’s prior action against Southwest 22 Airlines, the Court concludes it is frivolous and dismisses it with prejudice. Further, even 23 if the Court construed this case as an amended pleading for the prior case, the amended 24 pleading is untimely and does not survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The 25 Court also finds there are not exceptional circumstances warranting a request for pro bono 26 counsel. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 27 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. Wentworth’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF 28 No. 2) but DENIES her Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). The Court DISMISSES | || WITH PREJUDICE this action. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Finally, 2 ||the Clerk shall also place a Do Not File (“DNF”) tag on this case in light of Plaintiffs 3 ||numerous case filings and failure to follow the Court’s orders. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 A , 6 || DATED: November 19, 2021 Ypilag (Lyohaa. 6 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28