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-01935-BAS-AGS 13 Plaintiff, ORDER: 14

15 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO

16 EMMA LARSEN, 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 consolidated was Appiah v. Larsen, 21-cv-00686-BAS- 2 AGS. The Court granted the request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed 3 the Complaint because it did not state a claim. (No. 21-cv-00686-BAS-AGS, ECF No. 8.) 4 The Court ordered Ms. Wentworth to file an Amended Complaint in the lead consolidated 5 case by August 27, 2021. (Id.) She did not do so. 6 Ms. Wentworth now files this action, stating it is a “2nd Filing” for an action 7 originally filed in April 2021. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) She claims Defendant Larsen 8 committed fraud regarding one of her children’s school “grades and then attempted to bribe 9 [her] for a better grade during a scheduled conference.” (Id.) Ms. Wentworth seeks $13 10 million in damages. (Id.) She also moves to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel. 11 (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 against Defendant Larsen. And because 22 this case is duplicative of Ms. Wentworth’s prior action, the Court concludes it is frivolous 23 and dismisses it with prejudice. Further, even if the Court construed this case as an 24 amended pleading for the prior case, the amended pleading is untimely and does not survive 25 screening under

(e)(2)(B). The Court also finds there are not exceptional 26 circumstances warranting a request for pro bono counsel. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of 27 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 the prior action 6 || with Case No. 21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A , 9 || DATED: November 23, 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]