1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DAWN WENTWORTH, Case No. 21-cv-01926-BAS-AGS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER: 11 12 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE;
13 C AA CALI DF EO MRN YI , A CONNECTIONS (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN Defendant. FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 15 AND 16 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 17 APPOINT COUNSEL 18 (ECF No. 3)
19 DAWN WENTWORTH, Case No. 21-cv-01927-BAS-AGS 20 Plaintiff, ORDER: 21 v. 22 (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; ELAINE PAVLICH, 23 Defendant. (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 24 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 25 AND 26 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 27 APPOINT COUNSEL 28 (ECF No. 3) 1 2 DAWN WENTWORTH; YAW Case No. 21-cv-01928-BAS-AGS APPIAH-WENTWORTH, 3 ORDER: Plaintiffs,
4 (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; 5 v.
6 JENNIFER CONLEY, (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 7 Defendant. FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2);
AND 8
9 (3) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3) 10
11 DAWN WENTWORTH; YAW Case No. 21-cv-01929-BAS-AGS 12 A PPIAH-WENTWORTH, ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE;
HEATHER TAMAYO, 15 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 17 AND 18 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 19 APPOINT COUNSEL 20 (ECF No. 3)
28 1 DAAPPWIANH W-WEENNTTWWOORRTTHH; Y, AW C ase No. 21-cv-01930-BAS-AGS 2 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 3 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; 4 DR. RICHARD SAVAGE, 5 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 6 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 7 AND
8 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPOINT COUNSEL 10 (ECF No. 3)
11 DAWN WENTWORTH; YAW Case No. 21-cv-01931-BAS-AGS 12 APPIAH-WENTWORTH,
ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs,
14 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE;
15 DIANA RIVAS, (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 17 AND 18 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 19 APPOINT COUNSEL 20 (ECF No. 3)
28 1 DAAPPWIANH W-WEENNTTWWOORRTTHH; Y, AW C ase No. 21-cv-01932-BAS-AGS 2 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 3 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; 4 ADAM PULSIPHER, 5 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 6 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 7 AND
8 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3) 10
11 On April 16, 2021, Ms. Dawn Wentworth, on her own behalf and on behalf of her 12 two children, Yaw Appiah and Journee Hudson, filed 74 complaints in this federal district 13 court. Many of these complaints are duplicative, suing the same defendants with the same 14 allegations. The Court issued an order consolidating most of the cases. (Case No. 21-cv- 15 00757-BAS-AGS, Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No. 5.) The Court also issued an order 16 setting a hearing to discuss Ms. Wentworth’s many lawsuits. (Id., ECF No. 8.) Ms. 17 Wentworth did not appear at the hearing. (Id., ECF No. 10.) 18 In November 2021, Ms. Wentworth filed more than a dozen additional lawsuits, 19 including the seven matters shown above against different defendants. All these lawsuits 20 include allegations involving a racial slur said during an on-line gym class. In each lawsuit, 21 Ms. Wentworth moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and for appointment of 22 counsel. For the following reasons, the Court grants the requests to proceed IFP, 23 consolidates these cases, and denies the motions to appoint counsel. 24 I. Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 25 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay the 26 required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to proceed 27 without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls within the district 28 court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) 1 (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound 2 discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of 3 indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). It is well-settled that a party 4 need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)—without paying 5 the filing fee. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To 6 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 7 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and 8 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At 9 the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 10 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense . . . the remonstrances of 11 a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 12 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 13 Having read and considered Ms. Wentworth’s motions, the Court finds that she 14 meets the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Ms. Wentworth has two 15 children and lists expenses exceeding her income. She is not employed and has minimal 16 assets. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that requiring Ms. Wentworth to pay 17 the court filing fees would impair her ability to obtain the necessities of life. See Adkins, 18 335 U.S. at 339. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Ms. Wentworth’s requests to proceed 19 without paying the filing fees for these cases. 20 II. Consolidation 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that when “actions before the 22 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” 23 “The primary purpose of the rule is to promote trial court efficiency and avoid the danger 24 of inconsistent adjudications.” Malone v. Strong, No. 3:16-CV-05284-RBL-DWC, 2016 25 WL 3546037, at *4 n.2 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2016). Courts may consolidate cases on 26 their own initiative. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) 27 (“Because consolidation is within the broad discretion of the district court, . . . trial courts 28 may consolidate cases sua sponte.”). 1 Here, the Court finds consolidation is appropriate for the seven cases listed above. 2 They were filed on the same day and raise the same allegations concerning the same 3 subject matter. And joining all the Defendants in a single action would have been 4 appropriate. Therefore, the Court will consolidate the cases and designate a lead case for 5 any future filings. 6 III. Appointment of Counsel 7 “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 8 Tr. Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts do not 9 have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. District 10 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DAWN WENTWORTH, Case No. 21-cv-01926-BAS-AGS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER: 11 12 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE;
13 C AA CALI DF EO MRN YI , A CONNECTIONS (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN Defendant. FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 15 AND 16 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 17 APPOINT COUNSEL 18 (ECF No. 3)
19 DAWN WENTWORTH, Case No. 21-cv-01927-BAS-AGS 20 Plaintiff, ORDER: 21 v. 22 (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; ELAINE PAVLICH, 23 Defendant. (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 24 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 25 AND 26 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 27 APPOINT COUNSEL 28 (ECF No. 3) 1 2 DAWN WENTWORTH; YAW Case No. 21-cv-01928-BAS-AGS APPIAH-WENTWORTH, 3 ORDER: Plaintiffs,
4 (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; 5 v.
6 JENNIFER CONLEY, (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 7 Defendant. FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2);
AND 8
9 (3) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3) 10
11 DAWN WENTWORTH; YAW Case No. 21-cv-01929-BAS-AGS 12 A PPIAH-WENTWORTH, ORDER: Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE;
HEATHER TAMAYO, 15 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 17 AND 18 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 19 APPOINT COUNSEL 20 (ECF No. 3)
28 1 DAAPPWIANH W-WEENNTTWWOORRTTHH; Y, AW C ase No. 21-cv-01930-BAS-AGS 2 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 3 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; 4 DR. RICHARD SAVAGE, 5 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 6 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 7 AND
8 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPOINT COUNSEL 10 (ECF No. 3)
11 DAWN WENTWORTH; YAW Case No. 21-cv-01931-BAS-AGS 12 APPIAH-WENTWORTH,
ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs,
14 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE;
15 DIANA RIVAS, (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 17 AND 18 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 19 APPOINT COUNSEL 20 (ECF No. 3)
28 1 DAAPPWIANH W-WEENNTTWWOORRTTHH; Y, AW C ase No. 21-cv-01932-BAS-AGS 2 ORDER: Plaintiffs, 3 v. (1) CONSOLIDATING CASE; 4 ADAM PULSIPHER, 5 (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR Defendant. LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 6 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2); 7 AND
8 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 9 APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3) 10
11 On April 16, 2021, Ms. Dawn Wentworth, on her own behalf and on behalf of her 12 two children, Yaw Appiah and Journee Hudson, filed 74 complaints in this federal district 13 court. Many of these complaints are duplicative, suing the same defendants with the same 14 allegations. The Court issued an order consolidating most of the cases. (Case No. 21-cv- 15 00757-BAS-AGS, Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No. 5.) The Court also issued an order 16 setting a hearing to discuss Ms. Wentworth’s many lawsuits. (Id., ECF No. 8.) Ms. 17 Wentworth did not appear at the hearing. (Id., ECF No. 10.) 18 In November 2021, Ms. Wentworth filed more than a dozen additional lawsuits, 19 including the seven matters shown above against different defendants. All these lawsuits 20 include allegations involving a racial slur said during an on-line gym class. In each lawsuit, 21 Ms. Wentworth moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and for appointment of 22 counsel. For the following reasons, the Court grants the requests to proceed IFP, 23 consolidates these cases, and denies the motions to appoint counsel. 24 I. Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 25 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay the 26 required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to proceed 27 without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls within the district 28 court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) 1 (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound 2 discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of 3 indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). It is well-settled that a party 4 need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)—without paying 5 the filing fee. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To 6 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 7 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and 8 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At 9 the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 10 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense . . . the remonstrances of 11 a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 12 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 13 Having read and considered Ms. Wentworth’s motions, the Court finds that she 14 meets the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Ms. Wentworth has two 15 children and lists expenses exceeding her income. She is not employed and has minimal 16 assets. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that requiring Ms. Wentworth to pay 17 the court filing fees would impair her ability to obtain the necessities of life. See Adkins, 18 335 U.S. at 339. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Ms. Wentworth’s requests to proceed 19 without paying the filing fees for these cases. 20 II. Consolidation 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) provides that when “actions before the 22 court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . consolidate the actions.” 23 “The primary purpose of the rule is to promote trial court efficiency and avoid the danger 24 of inconsistent adjudications.” Malone v. Strong, No. 3:16-CV-05284-RBL-DWC, 2016 25 WL 3546037, at *4 n.2 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2016). Courts may consolidate cases on 26 their own initiative. In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987) 27 (“Because consolidation is within the broad discretion of the district court, . . . trial courts 28 may consolidate cases sua sponte.”). 1 Here, the Court finds consolidation is appropriate for the seven cases listed above. 2 They were filed on the same day and raise the same allegations concerning the same 3 subject matter. And joining all the Defendants in a single action would have been 4 appropriate. Therefore, the Court will consolidate the cases and designate a lead case for 5 any future filings. 6 III. Appointment of Counsel 7 “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution 8 Tr. Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, federal courts do not 9 have the authority “to make coercive appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. U.S. District 10 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989); see also United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 11 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 Districts courts have discretion, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to 13 “request” that an attorney represent indigent civil litigants upon a showing of “exceptional 14 circumstances.” See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); 15 accord Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). “A finding of the 16 exceptional circumstances of the plaintiff seeking assistance requires at least an evaluation 17 of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s 18 ability to articulate his claims ‘in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.’” 19 Agyeman, 390 F.3d at 1103 (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 20 1986)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Here, Ms. Wentworth seeks appointment of counsel for these cases because she 22 argues she lacks funds to hire an attorney and has no legal training. Having reviewed Ms. 23 Wentworth’s requests, the Court concludes there are not “exceptional circumstances” 24 warranting an appointment in these cases. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 25 Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Court DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s Motions for Appointment of 26 Counsel. 27 // 28 // 1 Conclusion 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to consolidate Case 3 || Nos. 21-cv-1926, 21-cv-1927, 21-cv-1928, 21-cv-1929, 21-cv-1930, 21-cv-1931, and 21- 4 ||cv-1932. The lead case will be Case No. 21-cv-1926. All future filings will be in the lead 5 || case. 6 Further, the Court GRANTS Ms. Wentworth’s Motions to Proceed Jn Forma 7 || Pauperis (ECF No. 2 in Case Nos. 21-cv-1926, 21-cv-1927, 21-cv-1928, 21-cv-1929, 21- 8 cv-1930, 21-cv-1931, and 21-cv-1932). The Court also DENIES Ms. Wentworth’s 9 || Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3 in Case Nos. 21-cv-1926, 21-cv-1927, 21-cv- 10 |] 1928, 21-cv-1929, 21-cv-1930, 21-cv-1931, and 21-cv-1932). 11 Finally, the Court cautions Ms. Wentworth that under Civil Local Rule 83.11, 12 || persons appearing without an attorney, like Ms. Wentworth, must “keep the Court and 13 || opposing parties advised as to [a] current address.” 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: December 6, 2021 yi A (Ayphan 6 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _7-