Dawn Wentworth v. Mission Vista High School & Personnel

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAWN WENTWORTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
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;
No. 22-55566
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00757-BAS-AGS
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-55566
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 of 3 --

3 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 of 3 --