In re Wentworth Civil Rights Cases

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