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-01936-BAS-AGS 13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14

15 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO

16 AM/PM AFTER SCHOOL, 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 The cases consolidated by the Court included Ms. Wentworth’s actions containing 2 allegations against Vista Unified School District and employees of the AM-PM Program, 3 which provides before and after school childcare. (Case No. 21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS.) In 4 the consolidated case, the Court granted the request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 5 and dismissed the underlying complaints because they did not state a claim. (Id., ECF No. 6 11.) The Court ordered Ms. Wentworth to file an Amended Complaint in the consolidated 7 case by August 27, 2021. (Id.) She did not do so. 8 Ms. Wentworth now files this action, stating it is a “2nd Filing” for an action 9 originally filed in April 2021 concerning the AM-PM Program and seeking $13 million in 10 damages per plaintiff. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) She also moves to proceed IFP and for 11 appointment of counsel. (ECF 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 There is no need for this additional action concerning the AM-PM Program. And 22 because this case is duplicative of Ms. Wentworth’s consolidated action, the Court 23 concludes it is frivolous and dismisses it with prejudice. Further, even if the Court 24 construed this case as an amended pleading for the prior case, the amended pleading is 25 untimely and does not follow the Court’s instructions in the consolidated case. The Court 26 also finds there are not exceptional circumstances warranting a request for pro bono 27 counsel. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am.,

, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 28 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. Wentworth’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF 2 || No. 2) but DENIES her Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 3). The Court DISMISSES 3 || WITH PREJUDICE this action. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Finally, 4 ||the Clerk shall also place a Do Not File (“DNF”) tag on this case because Ms. Wentworth 5 ||has not followed the Court’s orders and the Court already consolidated prior actions 6 || concerning these allegations in Case No. 21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A 9 || DATED: November 22, 2021 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4]