In re Wentworth Civil Rights Cases

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 4, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00757
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE WENTWORTH CIVIL RIGHTS No. 21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS CASES, 12 TENTATIVE ORDER DECLARING 13 DAWN WENTWORTH A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 14 15 16 17 For the following reasons, the Court tentatively declares Dawn Wentworth a 18 vexatious litigant for these consolidated civil rights cases. The Court gives Ms. Wentworth 19 an opportunity to respond to this tentative order by appearing on April 25, 2022, at 3:00 20 p.m. in Courtroom 4B. The Court will also tentatively subject Ms. Wentworth to a pre- 21 filing order for any new cases related to these consolidated actions, which will be 22 confirmed or lifted after the April 25, 2022 hearing. 23 I. Background 24 On April 16, 2021, Ms. Dawn Wentworth, on her own behalf and on behalf of her 25 two children, Yaw Appiah and Journee Hudson, filed seventy-four civil rights complaints 26 in this federal district court. Many of the complaints were duplicative; they sued the same 27 defendants based on the same allegations. On June 16, 2021, she added one more case 28 with duplicative allegations. The listed basis of federal jurisdiction in all seventy-five of 1 these cases was “the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and “the Unruh Civil Rights Act.” The 2 Court consolidated sixty-eight of these cases that made the same allegations against a 3 school district, teachers, law enforcement, and others concerning events involving her 4 children’s education. These sixty-eight cases were consolidated under the name In re 5 Wentworth Civil Rights Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-0757-BAS-AGS, and are shown in 6 Attachment 1. 7 The Court scheduled a hearing for May 17, 2021, and ordered Ms. Wentworth to 8 appear to discuss these duplicative lawsuits. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Ms. 9 Wentworth that if she did not appear for the hearing, the Court would issue an order to 10 show cause as to why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant. (Id.) When both the 11 order of consolidation and the order setting a hearing were returned as undeliverable, the 12 Court reissued the order and changed the zip code from 92065 to 92068. (ECF No. 8.) 13 Although this reissued order was not returned, Ms. Wentworth failed to appear for the May 14 17, 2021 hearing. 15 The Court then granted Ms. Wentworth and her children’s Motions to Proceed In 16 Forma Pauperis, but dismissed the consolidated sixty-eight cases under Rule 8 and for 17 failure to state a claim and gave Ms. Wentworth until August 27, 2021 to file an Amended 18 Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The order of dismissal was returned to the Court—again as 19 undeliverable—despite being sent to the updated zip code of 92068. Further, Ms. 20 Wentworth failed to file an amended complaint. 21 On November 17, 2021, Ms. Wentworth moved to reinstate the dismissed action. 22 (ECF No. 18.)1 However, she did not provide any amended complaint curing the defects 23 outlined in the Court’s dismissal order. 24 With respect to the other seven non-consolidated cases, the Court also granted Ms. 25 Wentworth’s requests to appear in forma pauperis, but again dismissed the complaints 26

27 1 Despite the fact that the order dismissing the cases was returned as undeliverable, Ms. Wentworth is apparently tracking the progress of her cases since she attaches information about the Court’s order of 28 1 under Rule 8 and for failure to state a cause of action. (See Wentworth v. HHSA Co. Admin. 2 Ctr., No. 21-cv-697-BAS; Wentworth v. Uber Corp. Headquarters HA, No. 21-cv-699- 3 BAS; Wentworth v. Sw. Airlines HQ, No. 21-cv-702-BAS; Wentworth v. Chase Inc., No. 4 21-cv-0730-TWR; Appiah, Hudson & Wentworth v. Big O Tires, No. 21-cv-0737-BAS; 5 Appiah, Hudson & Wentworth v. Oceanside Tire & Service Ctr., No. 21-cv-0755-BAS; 6 Wentworth v. NCHS Oceanside Health Ctr. & Personnel, No. 21-cv-0756-BAS.) The 7 Court gave Ms. Wentworth until September 3, 2021 to file an amended complaint. Ms. 8 Wentworth failed to do so.2 9 On November 12 and 15, 2021, Ms. Wentworth filed another sixteen cases. As a 10 preliminary matter, the address listed on all sixteen of these cases is the same address that 11 has resulted in a return of mail as undeliverable in past cases. Furthermore, in six of these 12 cases, Ms. Wentworth specifically indicates that this is the second time she has filed the 13 case, as the original was filed in April 2021. (See Wentworth v. Larsen, No. 21-cv-1935- 14 BAS; Wentworth v. AM/PM After School Program, No. 21-cv-1936-BAS; Wentworth v. 15 Calif. Bd. of Educ., No. 21-cv-1938-BAS; Wentworth v. Parco, No. 21-cv-1939-BAS; 16 Wentworth v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., No. 21-cv-1941-BAS; Wentworth v. Sw. Airlines, No. 17 21-cv-1943-BAS.) Thus, although the original cases were dismissed with leave to amend, 18 rather than amending, Ms. Wentworth simply waited and then refiled new cases. 19 Unfortunately, the new cases did not cure the defects outlined in the Court’s earlier orders 20 dismissing the actions. 21 Seven of the new cases had duplicate allegations about a racial slur allegedly being 22 used during an on-line gym class between September 13 and September 24, 2021. (See 23 Wentworth v. Calif. Connections Academy, No. 21-cv-1926-BAS; Wentworth v. Pavlich, 24 No. 21-cv-1927-BAS; Wentworth v. Conley, No. 21-cv-1928-BAS; Wentworth v. Tamayo, 25 No. 21-cv-1929-BAS; Wentworth v. Savage, No. 21-cv-1930-BAS; Wentworth v. Rivas, 26

27 2 Again, the Court’s orders granting dismissal were returned as undeliverable. The Court later recused on one of these cases: Wentworth v. Chase, Inc., No. 21-cv-00730-TWR-AGS. That case is 28 1 No. 21-cv-1931-BAS; Wentworth v. Pulsipher, No. 21-cv-1932-BAS.) Although the cases 2 each listed a different defendant, they appeared to arise out of the same event and should 3 have been combined into one case, particularly given the Court’s guidance to Ms. 4 Wentworth in her previous cases. 5 Finally, Ms. Wentworth filed two new cases against AT&T (No. 21-cv-1927-BAS) 6 and Xfinity Comcast (No. 21-cv-1942-BAS)—both arising out of the failure of her security 7 system. And she filed a new case against the U.S. District Court, the sole allegation of 8 which is: “I have filed civil rights violation cases with the U.S. federal court . . . . All the 9 cases were not filed after a change of custody.” (No. 21-cv-1940-BAS.) 10 All of the new cases suffered from the same defects as the original seventy-five cases 11 filed in April and June 2021: they simply did not comply with Rule 8’s requirement that 12 the complaint contain a “short and plain statement of [each] claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 13 This Court set a hearing for December 20, 2021 to determine whether Ms. 14 Wentworth should be declared a vexatious litigant for: (1) repeatedly filing complaints 15 without keeping the Court updated as to a valid address; (2) filing duplicate complaints 16 with insufficient allegations under Rule 8; (3) failing to appear at an earlier hearing when 17 ordered to do so by the Court; (4) rather than filing amended complaints as allowed by the 18 Court, filing new complaints long after the deadline for amendment had passed; and (5) 19 repeatedly filing complaints without any good faith expectation of prevailing. Ms. 20 Wentworth was warned that if she failed to appear for this hearing, the Court was likely to 21 declare her a vexatious litigant. 22 Ms. Wentworth failed to appear at the hearing. Since then, she has left voicemail 23 messages with the Court, stating more lawsuits need to be filed, that she is in the process 24 of gathering more evidence, and that her mail is being tampered with. Further, Ms. 25 Wentworth has since returned to the courthouse, stating she plans to file an additional 26 eighty lawsuits. She has never addressed any of the Court’s concerns about her claims. 27 The Court hence considers whether a vexatious litigant finding is appropriate for the 28 consolidated civil rights cases shown in Attachment 1. 1 II. Analysis 2 “District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against 3 vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation.” Weissman v. Quail 4 Lodge, 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999). “Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant 5 from filing further actions or papers unless he or she meets certain requirements, such as 6 obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of the case.” Id.; 7 see also DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (“There is strong 8 precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of 9 abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate 10 circumstances.”) (quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, “such pre-filing orders should 11 rarely be filed.” Id. 12 In DeLong, the Court laid out a four-part test before declaring a litigant vexatious. 13 The first two requirements are procedural: the litigant must have notice and an opportunity 14 to be heard on the issue and there must be an adequate record for review. 912 F.2d at 15 1147–48. With respect to this second factor, the court “should include a listing of all cases 16 and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was 17 needed.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (per 18 curiam) (quoting DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147). 19 The last two factors are substantive. First, the court must make substantive findings 20 that the plaintiff’s litigation has been frivolous or harassing. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148. 21 And, finally, any restriction must be narrowly tailored “to closely fit the specific vice 22 encountered.” Id. at 1147–48. 23 A. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard 24 As outlined above, the Court gave Ms. Wentworth multiple opportunities to be 25 heard. (ECF Nos. 4, 8, 20.) The Court warned her that a failure to appear could result in 26 her being declared a vexatious litigant. (ECF No. 20.) These multiple opportunities satisfy 27 the first procedural requirement. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 28 1 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2014). And the Court will give her an additional opportunity to 2 respond to this tentative order. 3 B. Adequate Record for Review 4 In Molski, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court compiled a proper record for 5 review where “[t]he record before the district court contained a complete list of the cases 6 filed by Molski in the Central District of California, along with the complaints from many 7 of those cases,” and where “[a]lthough the district court’s decision entering the pre-filing 8 order did not list every case filed by Molski, it did outline and discuss many of them.” 9 Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063. The Court has included a list of Ms. Wentworth’s 10 many civil rights cases in Attachment 1 and summarized them above. Further, the Court 11 incorporates its discussion of these cases from its prior orders. (ECF Nos. 11, 19, 20.) 12 Combined, these efforts provide an adequate record for review. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 13 761 F.3d at 1063–64. 14 C. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment 15 With respect to substantive findings of frivolity or harassment, the court must find 16 more than a showing of litigiousness. “[T]he simple fact that a plaintiff has filed a large 17 number of complaints, standing alone, is not a basis for designating a litigant as 18 ‘vexatious.’” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. Even “the textual and factual similarity of a 19 plaintiff’s complaints, standing alone, is not a basis for finding a party to be a vexatious 20 litigant.” Id. After all, “there is nothing inherently vexatious about using prior complaints 21 as a template.” Id. Hence, the Court must examine both the number and content of Ms. 22 Wentworth’s filings to determine whether they are frivolous or harassing. See Ringgold- 23 Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064. 24 Having reviewed Ms. Wentworth’s well over fifty civil rights cases, the Court finds 25 they are both frivolous and harassing. They are frivolous because the lawsuits include 26 almost no details about Ms. Wentworth’s claims, are duplicative, request millions of dollars 27 in damages, and are repeatedly abandoned once the Court issues a screening order 28 requesting details about the claims. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1 1990) (“An injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of litigiousness. The plaintiff’s 2 claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently without merit.”). These many cases 3 have consumed “a great deal” of the Court’s time, and Ms. Wentworth continues to say she 4 plans to file many more lawsuits, as opposed to respond to the Court’s concerns and 5 guidance expressed in prior orders. See id. Hence, for those civil rights cases that have 6 been consolidated, the Court finds Ms. Wentworth’s filings have been frivolous and 7 harassing. 8 D. Narrow Tailoring 9 Any pre-filing order must be narrowly tailored to fit the specific abuse encountered. 10 The Court finds the appropriate tailoring here is to restrict Ms. Wentworth from freely 11 filing lawsuits “based on the facts and issues” raised in the consolidated civil rights cases 12 shown in Attachment 1. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, 705 F.2d 13 1515, 1526 (9th Cir. 1986). If Ms. Wentworth wishes to proceed with any claims related 14 to those lawsuits, she must address the Court’s prior orders in these cases, not file new 15 duplicitous lawsuits. 16 Further, although Ms. Wentworth has filed various lawsuits against other 17 defendants, which have not been consolidated, those cases appear to arise out of different 18 events. The Court will not subject Ms. Wentworth to a broader pre-filing order that would 19 include all these lawsuits at this time. If Ms. Wentworth files more frivolous lawsuits 20 against new defendants, the Court will consider whether an additional or broader pre-filing 21 order is appropriate. 22 III. Conclusion 23 In light of the foregoing, the Court tentatively declares Ms. Dawn Wentworth a 24 vexatious litigant for these consolidated civil rights cases. Further, the Court sets a hearing 25 for April 25, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B on this order. Aside from appearing 26 at this hearing, Ms. Wentworth may also respond to the Court’s tentative order in 27 writing no later than April 25, 2022. Telephone calls and voicemail messages are not 28 acceptable because they do not allow the Court to maintain a record. I Further, the Court tentatively subjects Ms. Wentworth to the following pre-filing 2 || order, which the Court will confirm or lift after the April 25, 2022, hearing. The Clerk of 3 || Court is directed not to file any new complaints from Ms. Wentworth that: (a) allege civil 4 rights abuses; or (b) are against any of the defendants shown in Attachment 1. Instead, the 5 || Clerk is directed to send the proposed complaints to the undersigned, who will review them 6 || to determine whether they are not frivolous or harassing and should be accepted for filing. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A □ 9 || DATED: April 4, 2022 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ATTACHMENT 1 Count Case Title Date Filed 1 3:2021-cv-00681-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. UZI 4/16/2021 Hudson v. Vista Unified School District 2 3:2021-cv-00682-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 Board of Trustees et al Hudson v. Oceanside Police 3 3:2021-cv-00683-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 Department 4 3:2021-cv-00684-BAS-AGS Wentworth v. Oceanside Police Dept. 4/16/2021 5 3:2021-cv-00685-BAS-AGS Wentworth v. Norris 4/16/2021 6 3:2021-cv-00686-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Larsen 4/16/2021 7 3:2021-cv-00688-BAS-AGS Wentworth v. Appiah et al 4/16/2021 8 3:2021-cv-00689-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Wilson 4/16/2021 9 3:2021-cv-00690-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Walsh 4/16/2021 10 3:2021-cv-00691-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Clark 4/16/2021 11 3:2021-cv-00692-BAS-AGS Wentworth et al v. Brown 4/16/2021 12 3:2021-cv-00693-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Clark 4/16/2021 13 3:2021-cv-00694-BAS-AGS Wentworth et al v. Mission Vista Proxy 4/16/2021 14 3:2021-cv-00695-BAS-AGS Wentworth v. 9th District PTA 4/16/2021 15 3:2021-cv-00696-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Allard 4/16/2021 16 3:2021-cv-00698-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Mission Vista Proxy 4/16/2021 17 3:2021-cv-00700-BAS-AGS Hudson v. School Counselor 4/16/2021 Wentworth v. San Diego Sheriff's 18 3:2021-cv-00701-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 Department Wentworth et al v. San Diego County 19 3:2021-cv-00703-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 Sheriff's Dept Wentworth v. Vista Unified School 20 3:2021-cv-00705-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 District Hudson et al v. Vista United School 21 3:2021-cv-00706-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 District School Counselor Hudson v. Vista Unified School District 22 3:2021-cv-00707-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 et al 23 3:2021-cv-00708-BAS-AGS Wentworth v. Parco 4/16/2021 24 3:2021-cv-00709-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Shackelford 4/16/2021 25 3:2021-cv-00710-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Allard 4/16/2021 Count Case Title Date Filed 26 3:2021-cv-00711-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Groundskeeper/Security 4/16/2021 27 3:2021-cv-00712-BAS-AGS Hudson v. UZI 4/16/2021 28 3:2021-cv-00713-BAS-AGS Hudson v. New English Teacher 4/16/2021 29 3:2021-cv-00714-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Shackelford 4/16/2021 30 3:2021-cv-00715-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. New English Teacher 4/16/2021 31 3:2021-cv-00716-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. AM/PM Afterschool 4/16/2021 32 3:2021-cv-00717-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Peppard 1 et al 4/16/2021 Appiah et al v. Vista Unified School 33 3:2021-cv-00718-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 District Board of Trustees et al 34 3:2021-cv-00719-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Ho 4/16/2021 35 3:2021-cv-00720-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Buck 4/16/2021 36 3:2021-cv-00721-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Ho 4/16/2021 37 3:2021-cv-00722-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Dambroso 4/16/2021 38 3:2021-cv-00723-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Buck 4/16/2021 39 3:2021-cv-00724-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Martin 4/16/2021 40 3:2021-cv-00725-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Domenici 4/16/2021 41 3:2021-cv-00726-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Gulley 4/16/2021 42 3:2021-cv-00727-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Westerlund 4/16/2021 43 3:2021-cv-00728-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Zeroski 4/16/2021 44 3:2021-cv-00729-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Gulley 4/16/2021 45 3:2021-cv-00731-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Chagala 4/16/2021 46 3:2021-cv-00732-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Wiblemo 4/16/2021 47 3:2021-cv-00733-BAS-AGS Hudson v. McIntosh 4/16/2021 48 3:2021-cv-00734-BAS-AGS Hudson v. DAmbroso 4/16/2021 49 3:2021-cv-00736-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Wiblemo 4/16/2021 50 3:2021-cv-00738-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Walsh 4/16/2021 51 3:2021-cv-00739-BAS-AGS Hudson v. CA Dept of Education 4/16/2021 52 3:2021-cv-00740-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. Strohauer 4/16/2021 53 3:2021-cv-00741-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Peppard 4/16/2021 54 3:2021-cv-00742-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Doyle 4/16/2021 55 3:2021-cv-00743-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Westerlund 4/16/2021 56 3:2021-cv-00744-BAS-AGS Appiah et al v. KKK Ku Klux Klan 4/16/2021 Count Case Title Date Filed 58 3:2021-cv-00746-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Wetmore 4/16/2021 Appiah et al v. Neighbor - 510 Calle 59 3:2021-cv-00747-BAS-AGS Montecito Dr Unit 50 Oceanside CA 4/16/2021 92058 60 3:2021-cv-00748-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Kenney 4/16/2021 61 3:2021-cv-00749-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Kenney 4/16/2021 62 3:2021-cv-00750-BAS-AGS Hudson v. U.S. Dept of Education 4/16/2021 63 3:2021-cv-00751-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Zeroski 4/16/2021 64 3:2021-cv-00752-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Wetmore 4/16/2021 65 3:2021-cv-00753-BAS-AGS Hudson v. Mission Vista High School 4/16/2021 66 3:2021-cv-00754-BAS-AGS Hudson et al v. Peppard et al 4/16/2021 Wentworth et al v. Mission Vista High 67 3:2021-cv-00757-BAS-AGS 4/16/2021 School & Personnel et al 68 3:021-cv-01122-BAS-AGS Wentworth v. Peppard 6/16/2021