DAWN WENTWORTH, ET AL V. MISSION VISTA HIGH SCHOOL & PERSONNEL, ET AL, No. 22-55566 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAWN WENTWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, and No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 22-55566 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS MEMORANDUM* JOURNEE HUDSON; YAW APPIAH, Plaintiffs, v. MISSION VISTA HIGH SCHOOL & PERSONNEL; VISTA INNOVATION & DESIGN ACADEMY & PERSONNEL; VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD & PERSONNEL; CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION & PERSONNEL; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION & PERSONNEL; US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & PERSONNEL; OCEANSIDE POLICE DEPT & PERSONNEL; SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT & PERSONNEL; AM PM AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM & PERSONNEL; KKK; KU KLUX KLAN; UZI; VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES; ROSEMARY SMITHFIELD; CIPRIANO VARGAS; DEBBIE MORTON; * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. MARTHA ALVARADO; JULIE KELLY; OCEANSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DAVID B. NORRIS; EMMA LARSEN; JOSEPH ARMENTA; KIMBERLY KRIEDEMAN; MICHELLE WALSH; ELIZABETH CLARK; SYLVIA BROWN; MISSION VISTA PROXY; 9TH DISTRICT PTA; NICOLE ALLARD; RACHEL DAMBROSO; SCHOOL COUNSELOR; SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; HELENA ZEROSKI; ERIC CHAGALA, Dr.; PEPPARD, female/mother; PEPPARD, male/father; MISSION VISTA HIGH SCHOOL, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Dawn Wentworth appeals pro se from the district court’s order declaring her a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 22-55566 v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Wentworth to be a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against her after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making substantive findings as to frivolousness, and narrowly tailoring the order to prevent abusive litigation conduct. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth the requirements the district court must consider before imposing pre-filing restrictions). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 22-55566

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.