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

21

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,

, 16 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy,

(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,

, 1105 n.2 (9th 19 Cir. 1995) (quoting Bailey v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 1988)) (construing 20 former version of

(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

(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.,

, 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