In re Wentworth Civil Rights Cases

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 ORDER DECLARING DAWN 13 WENTWORTH A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 14

15 16

17 On April 4, 2022, the Court issued a Tentative Order Declaring Dawn Wentworth a 18 Vexatious Litigant. (ECF No. 22.) The Court held a hearing on the Tentative Order, at 19 which Ms. Wentworth appeared. (ECF No. 25.) For the following reasons, the Court 20 confirms its tentative order and declares Ms. Wentworth a vexatious litigant for these 21 consolidated civil rights cases. 22 I. Background 23 On April 16, 2021, Ms. Dawn Wentworth, on her own behalf and on behalf of her 24 two children, Yaw Appiah, and Journee Hudson, filed seventy-four civil rights complaints 25 in this federal district court. Many of the complaints were duplicative; they sued the same 26 defendants based on the same allegations. On June 16, 2021, she added one more case 27 with duplicative allegations. The listed basis of federal jurisdiction in all seventy-five of 28 these cases was “the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and “the Unruh Civil Rights Act.” The 1 Court consolidated sixty-eight of these cases that made the same allegations against a 2 school district, teachers, law enforcement, and others concerning events involving her 3 children’s education. These sixty-eight cases were consolidated under the name In re 4 Wentworth Civil Rights Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-0757-BAS-AGS, and are shown in 5 Attachment 1. 6 The Court scheduled a hearing for May 17, 2021, and ordered Ms. Wentworth to 7 appear to discuss these duplicative lawsuits. (ECF No. 4.) The Court warned Ms. 8 Wentworth that if she did not appear for the hearing, the Court would issue an order to 9 show cause as to why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant. (Id.) When both the 10 order of consolidation and the order setting a hearing were returned as undeliverable, the 11 Court reissued the order and changed the zip code from 92065 to 92068. (ECF No. 8.) 12 Although this reissued order was not returned as undeliverable, Ms. Wentworth 13 failed to appear for the May 17, 2021, hearing. The Court then granted Ms. Wentworth 14 and her children’s Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, but dismissed the consolidated 15 sixty-eight cases under Rule 8 and for failure to state a claim and gave Ms. Wentworth 16 until August 27, 2021, to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The order of 17 dismissal was returned to the Court—again as undeliverable—despite being sent to the 18 updated zip code of 92068. Further, Ms. Wentworth failed to file an amended complaint. 19 On November 17, 2021, Ms. Wentworth moved to reinstate the dismissed action. 20 (ECF No. 18.)1 However, she did not provide any amended complaint curing the defects 21 outlined in the Court’s dismissal order. 22 With respect to the other seven non-consolidated cases, the Court also granted Ms. 23 Wentworth’s requests to appear in forma pauperis, but again dismissed the complaints 24 under Rule 8 and for failure to state a cause of action. (See Wentworth v. HHSA Co. Admin. 25 Ctr., No. 21-cv-697-BAS; Wentworth v. Uber Corp. Headquarters HA, No. 21-cv-699- 26

27 1 Despite the fact that the order dismissing the cases was returned as undeliverable, Ms. Wentworth is 28 apparently tracking the progress of her cases since she attaches information about the Court’s order of 1 BAS; Wentworth v. Sw. Airlines HQ, No. 21-cv-702-BAS; Wentworth v. Chase Inc., No. 2 21-cv-0730-TWR; Appiah, Hudson & Wentworth v. Big O Tires, No. 21-cv-0737-BAS; 3 Appiah, Hudson & Wentworth v. Oceanside Tire & Service Ctr., No. 21-cv-0755-BAS; 4 Wentworth v. NCHS Oceanside Health Ctr. & Personnel, No. 21-cv-0756-BAS.) The 5 Court gave Ms. Wentworth until September 3, 2021, to file an amended complaint. Ms. 6 Wentworth failed to do so.2 7 On November 12 and 15, 2021, Ms. Wentworth filed another sixteen cases. As a 8 preliminary matter, the address listed on all sixteen of these cases is the same address that 9 has resulted in a return of mail as undeliverable in past cases. Furthermore, in six of these 10 cases, Ms. Wentworth specifically indicates that this is the second time she has filed the 11 case, as the original was filed in April 2021. (See Wentworth v. Larsen, No. 21-cv-1935- 12 BAS; Wentworth v. AM/PM After School Program, No. 21-cv-1936-BAS; Wentworth v. 13 Calif. Bd. of Educ., No. 21-cv-1938-BAS; Wentworth v. Parco, No. 21-cv-1939-BAS; 14 Wentworth v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., No. 21-cv-1941-BAS; Wentworth v. Sw. Airlines, No. 15 21-cv-1943-BAS.) Thus, although the original cases were dismissed with leave to amend, 16 rather than amending, Ms. Wentworth simply waited and then refiled new cases. 17 Unfortunately, the new cases did not cure the defects outlined in the Court’s earlier orders 18 dismissing the actions. 19 Seven of the new cases had duplicate allegations about a racial slur allegedly being 20 used during an on-line gym class between September 13 and September 24, 2021. (See 21 Wentworth v. Calif. Connections Academy, No. 21-cv-1926-BAS; Wentworth v. Pavlich, 22 No. 21-cv-1927-BAS; Wentworth v. Conley, No. 21-cv-1928-BAS; Wentworth v. Tamayo, 23 No. 21-cv-1929-BAS; Wentworth v. Savage, No. 21-cv-1930-BAS; Wentworth v. Rivas, 24 No. 21-cv-1931-BAS; Wentworth v. Pulsipher, No. 21-cv-1932-BAS.) Although the cases 25 each listed a different defendant, they appeared to arise out of the same event and should 26

27 2 Again, the Court’s orders granting dismissal were returned as undeliverable. The Court later recused 28 on one of these cases: Wentworth v. Chase, Inc., No. 21-cv-00730-TWR-AGS. That case is likewise now 1 have been combined into one case, particularly given the Court’s guidance to Ms. 2 Wentworth in her previous cases. 3 Further, Ms. Wentworth filed two new cases against AT&T (No. 21-cv-1927-BAS) 4 and Xfinity Comcast (No. 21-cv-1942-BAS)—both arising out of the failure of her security 5 system. And she filed a new case against the U.S. District Court, the sole allegation of 6 which is: “I have filed civil rights violation cases with the U.S. federal court . . . . All the 7 cases were not filed after a change of custody.” (No. 21-cv-1940-BAS.) 8 All of the new cases suffered from the same defects as the original seventy-five cases 9 filed in April and June 2021: they simply did not comply with Rule 8’s requirement that 10 the complaint contain a “short and plain statement of [each] claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 11 This Court set a hearing for December 20, 2021 to determine whether Ms. 12 Wentworth should be declared a vexatious litigant for: (1) repeatedly filing complaints 13 without keeping the Court updated as to a valid address; (2) filing duplicate complaints 14 with insufficient allegations under Rule 8; (3) failing to appear at an earlier hearing when 15 ordered to do so by the Court; (4) rather than filing amended complaints as allowed by the 16 Court, filing new complaints long after the deadline for amendment had passed; and 17 (5) repeatedly filing complaints without any good faith expectation of prevailing. Ms. 18 Wentworth was warned that if she failed to appear for this hearing, the Court was likely to 19 declare her a vexatious litigant. 20 Ms. Wentworth failed to appear at the hearing. Since then, she left voicemail 21 messages with the Court, stating more lawsuits need to be filed, that she is in the process 22 of gathering more evidence, and that her mail is being tampered with. Further, Ms. 23 Wentworth returned to the courthouse, stating she plans to file an additional eighty 24 lawsuits. And on the day the Court issued its Tentative Order, Ms. Wentworth attempted 25 to file a collection of additional lawsuits. The Court rejected one because it was duplicative 26 of an earlier suit and fell under the Tentative Order’s filing restriction. The Court accepted 27 three other lawsuits for filing, related them to three identical prior lawsuits, and then 28 1 dismissed them as duplicative or for failing to pay the filing fee. (Case Nos. 22-cv-0570, 2 22-cv-0571, 22-cv-0573.) 3 II. Analysis 4 “District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against 5 vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation.” Weissman v. Quail 6 Lodge, 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999). “Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant 7 from filing further actions or papers unless he or she meets certain requirements, such as 8 obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of the case.” Id.; 9 see also DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990) (“There is strong 10 precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of 11 abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate 12 circumstances.” (alteration omitted)). Nonetheless, “such pre-filing orders should rarely 13 be filed.” Id. 14 In DeLong, the Ninth Circuit laid out a four-part test before declaring a litigant 15 vexatious. The first two requirements are procedural: the litigant must have notice and an 16 opportunity to be heard on the issue and there must be an adequate record for review. 912 17 F.2d at 1147–48. With respect to this second factor, the court “should include a listing of 18 all cases and motions that led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order 19 was needed.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) 20 (per curiam) (quoting DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1147). 21 The last two factors are substantive. First, the court must make substantive findings 22 that the plaintiff’s litigation has been frivolous or harassing. DeLong, 912 F.2d at 1148. 23 And, finally, any restriction must be narrowly tailored “to closely fit the specific vice 24 encountered.” Id. at 1147–48. 25 A. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard 26 As outlined above, the Court gave Ms. Wentworth multiple opportunities to be 27 heard. (ECF Nos. 4, 8, 20, 25.) Ms. Wentworth appeared and argued at the hearing on the 28 Court’s Tentative Order. (ECF No. 25.) Hence, these opportunities satisfy the first 1 procedural requirement. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 2 1063 (9th Cir. 2014). 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 (discussing Molski, 500 F.3d 1047). The Court has 10 included a list of Ms. Wentworth’s many civil rights cases in Attachment 1 and summarized 11 them above. Further, the Court incorporates its discussion of these cases from its prior 12 orders. (ECF Nos. 11, 19, 20.) Finally, the Court highlights several of these cases here to 13 show they demonstrate a pattern of frivolous and harassing filings: 14 • Hudson; Wentworth v. Uzi, No. 21-cv-00681-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 16, 15 2021). 16 o Wentworth alleged Defendant “Uzi” violated the “Civil Rights Act [of] 17 1964” and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act in December 2019. No 18 factual details were given for the “Statement of Claim.” The Complaint’s 19 “Relief” section identified “Malicious Intent,” “Racial Discrimination / 20 Harassment / Aggression,” and “Hate Crime” with no details. 21 • Wentworth v. San Diego County Sheriff Department, No. 21-cv-00701-BAS- 22 AGS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2021). 23 o Wentworth alleged the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department committed 24 fraud and violated the “Civil Rights Act [of] 1964” and the California 25 Unruh Civil Rights Act in 2019 and 2020. No factual details were given 26 for the “Statement of Claim.” The Complaint’s “Relief” section sought $1 27 million and identifies “Malicious Intent,” “Termination,” and “Hate 28 Crime” with no details. 1 • Hudson v. Groundkeeper, No. 21-cv-00707-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 16, 2 2021). 3 o Filed on behalf of her son, Wentworth alleged a “Groundkeeper/Security 4 [Person]” violated the “Civil Rights Act [of] 1964” and the California 5 Unruh Civil Rights Act from 2016 to 2020. No factual details were given 6 for the “Statement of Claim.” The Complaint’s “Relief” section identified 7 “Malicious Intent,” “Racial Discrimination / Harassment / Aggression,” 8 and “Hate Crime” with no details. 9 • Appiah et al. v. KKK Ku Klux Klan, No. 21-cv-00744-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal. filed 10 Apr. 16, 2021). 11 o Filed on behalf of herself and her two children, Wentworth alleged the Ku 12 Klux Klan violated civil rights laws and committed “racial discrimination 13 / harassment / intimidation / aggression” from April 2019 to 2021. No 14 factual details were given for the “Statement of Claim.” The Complaint’s 15 “Relief” section sought $1 million and identifies “Malicious Intent” and 16 “Hate Crime” with no details. 17 Combined, the Court’s efforts to document Ms. Wentworth’s many cases provide an 18 adequate record for review. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1063–64. 19 C. Substantive Findings of Frivolousness or Harassment 20 With respect to substantive findings of frivolity or harassment, the Court must find 21 more than a showing of litigiousness. “[T]he simple fact that a plaintiff has filed a large 22 number of complaints, standing alone, is not a basis for designating a litigant as 23 ‘vexatious.’” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. Even “the textual and factual similarity of a 24 plaintiff’s complaints, standing alone, is not a basis for finding a party to be a vexatious 25 litigant.” Id. After all, “there is nothing inherently vexatious about using prior complaints 26 as a template.” Id. Hence, the Court must examine both the number and content of Ms. 27 Wentworth’s filings to determine whether they are frivolous or harassing. See Ringgold- 28 Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1064. Having reviewed Ms. Wentworth’s well over fifty civil rights 1 cases, the Court finds they are both frivolous and harassing. They are frivolous because 2 the lawsuits include almost no details about Ms. Wentworth’s claims, are duplicative, 3 request millions of dollars in damages, and are repeatedly abandoned once the Court issues 4 a screening order requesting details about the claims. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 5 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1990) (“An injunction cannot issue merely upon a showing of 6 litigiousness. The plaintiff’s claims must not only be numerous, but also be patently 7 without merit.”). These many cases have consumed “a great deal” of the Court’s time, and 8 Ms. Wentworth has not responded to the Court’s concerns and guidance expressed in prior 9 orders. See id. 10 Moreover, Local Rule 83.11 requires anyone proceeding without an attorney to 11 “keep the court . . . advised as to current address.” At the hearing on the Court’s Tentative 12 Order, Ms. Wentworth argued her mail was being tampered with and she had not received 13 the Court’s Orders. However, while some orders were returned as undeliverable, others 14 were not. (See ECF Nos. 4 to 22 (including undeliverable notices for some orders but not 15 the Court’s May 13, 2021, order setting a hearing and others).) And the Court notes Ms. 16 Wentworth lists the same address on her latest filings as the Court has used before. (See 17 Compl. in Case No. 22-cv-00571-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 4, 2022) (listing “PO 18 Box 495, Oceanside, CA 92068” on the Civil Cover Sheet, the same address being used in 19 this consolidated action).) Finally, address issues aside, any troubles with mail do not 20 explain the main problem here: Ms. Wentworth filing dozens of duplicative lawsuits 21 without enough detail to allow the Court to proceed. 22 Accordingly, for those civil rights cases that have been consolidated, the Court finds 23 Ms. Wentworth’s filings have been frivolous and harassing. 24 D. Narrow Tailoring 25 Any pre-filing order must be narrowly tailored to fit the specific abuse encountered. 26 The Court finds the appropriate tailoring here is to restrict Ms. Wentworth from freely 27 filing lawsuits “based on the facts and issues” raised in the consolidated civil rights cases 28 shown in Attachment 1. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, 705 F.2d 1 }} 1515, 1526 (9th Cir. 1986). If Ms. Wentworth wishes to proceed with any claims related 2 ||to those lawsuits, she must address the Court’s prior orders in these cases, not file new 3 || duplicative lawsuits. 4 Conclusion 5 In light of the foregoing, the Court declares Ms. Dawn Wentworth a vexatious 6 || litigant for these consolidated civil rights cases. Further, the Court subjects Ms. Wentworth 7 the following pre-filing order. 8 The Clerk of Court is directed not to file any new complaints from Ms. Wentworth 9 || that: (a) appear to be related to the consolidated civil rights actions shown in Attachment 10 || 1; or (b) are against any of the defendants shown in Attachment 1. Instead, the Clerk is 11 directed to send the proposed complaints to the undersigned, who will review them to 12 || determine whether they are not frivolous or harassing and should be accepted for filing. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 /\ YY 15 || DATED: April 29, 2022 ( yi A (Hiphan Hog. Cynthia Bashant 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | — The Court’s Tentative Order noted that although Ms. Wentworth has filed various lawsuits 26 || against other defendants, which have not been consolidated, those cases appear to arise out of different events. The Court will not subject Ms. Wentworth to a broader pre-filing order that would include all 27 || these lawsuits in this order. However, because Ms. Wentworth has filed more duplicative lawsuits against 28 other defendants, the Court will consider whether an additional or broader pre-filing order is appropriate in those cases and provide her an opportunity to respond.

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