Wentworth v. Parco

Opinion

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-01939-BAS-AGS 13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14 15 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 16 DENISE PARCO, 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 The cases consolidated by the Court included Wentworth v. Parco, Case No. 21-cv- 2 00708-BAS-AGS. The Complaint in Parco lacked any factual allegations, so the Court 3 assumed it is related to Ms. Wentworth’s broader education-related dispute involving her 4 children in Case No. 21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS. In the consolidated case, the Court granted 5 the request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed the underlying complaints 6 because they did not state a claim. (Id., ECF No. 11.) The Court ordered Ms. Wentworth 7 to file an Amended Complaint in the consolidated case by August 27, 2021. (Id.) She did 8 not do so. One of the cases the Court did not consolidate is Wentworth v. Southwest 9 Airlines HQ, Case No. 21-cv-00702-BAS-AGS, which appears unrelated to the education 10 cases. 11 Ms. Wentworth now files this action, stating it is a “2nd Filing” for an action 12 originally filed in April 2021. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) She claims Defendant Parco works 13 for Southwest Airlines and “assaulted” her in a “vicious attack” that “drew blood causing 14 bodily injury and other injuries.” (Id.) Ms. Wentworth seeks $13 million in damages. (Id.) 15 She also moves to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) 16 The same day Ms. Wentworth filed this action, she also filed another duplicative 17 action against Southwest Airlines in Case No. 21-cv-01943-BAS-AGS. The Court 18 dismissed that action, reasoning it is duplicative of her Southwest Airlines action in Case 19 No. 21-cv-00702-BAS-AGS. 20 For this case, the Court again grants Ms. Wentworth’s request to proceed IFP. 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court must dismiss an action where the plaintiff is 22 proceeding IFP if the court determines that the action “is frivolous or malicious.” An IFP 23 complaint “is frivolous if it has ‘no arguable basis in fact or law.’” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 24 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9th 25 Cir.1984)). In addition, an IFP complaint “that merely repeats pending or previously 26 litigated claims” is subject to dismissal as frivolous. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 27 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th 28 1 || Cir.1988)) (construing former version of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which then governed 2 || dismissal for frivolousness). 3 There is no need for this additional action against Defendant Parco. And because 4 ||this case is duplicative of Ms. Wentworth’s prior actions against Defendant Parco and 5 ||Southwest Airlines, the Court concludes it is frivolous and dismisses it with prejudice. 6 || Further, even if the Court construed this case as an amended pleading for the prior Parco 7 || case, the amended pleading is untimely and does not survive screening under 28 U.S.C. 8 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court also finds there are not exceptional circumstances warranting 9 ||a request for pro bono counsel. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 10 || (9th Cir. 2004). 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. Wentworth’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF 12 || No. 2) but DENIES her Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). The Court DISMISSES 13 || WITH PREJUDICE this action. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Finally, 14 || the Clerk shall also place a Do Not File (“DNF”) tag on this case because Ms. Wentworth 15 |/has not followed the Court’s orders and there is a prior action against Defendant Parco. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 /) yoy 18 || DATED: November 23, 2021 ( yi 4 (Hiphanr 6 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28