Celece v. Dunn Sch., Case No. CV 20-10139 GW (PVCx)
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 20-10139 GW (PVCx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | CELECE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUNN SCHOOL, et al., Defendants. |
On November 3, 2020, "Celece" and "John Doe," California residents proceeding pro se (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a joint complaint against twelve named Defendants and two unknown Defendants raising twenty-six purported causes of action. ("Complaint," Dkt. No. 1). Simultaneously with the Complaint, each Plaintiff separately filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. ("IFP Requests," Dkt. Nos. 5-6). However, the Complaint does not appear to provide a basis for federal jurisdiction because all of its purported federal claims appear to be untimely, non-cognizable, or both.
"A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit," even if the plaintiff otherwise qualifies financially for IFP status. Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3)(2) (). An in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous if "it ha[s] no arguable substance in law or fact." Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (); Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (). Nonetheless, pro se plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis "must also be given an opportunity to amend their complaint unless it is 'absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.'" Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Stanger v. City of Santa Cruz, 653 F.2d 1257, 1257-58 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015) (). Here, it appears that the defects in the Complaint may be fatal and amendment would be futile.
The Complaint, which was "drafted by" Celece and is "written from [her] perspective," primarily concerns events that occurred between 1995 and 1997, whenCelece was fourteen to sixteen years old. (Complaint at 5). Celece alleges that between late February 1995 and July 1996, she was "forcibly detained" at Cross Creek Manor in LaVerkin, Utah, a "military style behavioral modification camp for girls" that subjected its residents to "NLP" programming.1 (Id. at 2-4, 7). When insurance coverage began to run out, Celece's mother withdrew Celece from Cross Creek Manor and enrolled her at Dunn School in Los Olivos, California, a private high school where she attended tenth grade from August 1996 through early March 1997. (Id. at 2-4, 10-11).
As part of the purported NPL programming at Cross Creek Manor, Celece "was subjected to enhanced interrogation, witnessed other girls as young as 12 being brutalized, and . . . was subjected to improper psychological experimentation." (Id. at 8). She was forcibly stripped naked on multiple occasions, and her life was threatened "on a near daily basis as a matter of routine." (Id.). Once, Celece's mother obtained a "home pass" for Celece and took her on a cruise, where, in accordance with NLP requirements and her mother's encouragement, she was required to flirt with older men. (Id. at 10). As the time came for Celece to leave Cross Creek Manor, she was warned that if she did not "get with the [NLP] program," she would end up dead or in jail. (Id.).
Celece's mother withdrew Celece from Cross Creek Manor and took her to Dunn School in September 1996, where Celece lived in the girl's dorm. (Id. at 12). Celece was required by her mother and the NLP program to "abide by the rules of the program" even while at Dunn, which included not speaking to her male peers, but only adult males; obeying all instructions, regardless of the risk of harm, given by adult authority figures; and sitting with her legs apart, among other requirements. (Id.).
Within two weeks of Celece's arrival at Dunn, members of the faculty began "bullying . . . and sexually harassing" her. (Id.). One female administrator told her that she needed to become a "fluffer" in the porn industry because she could not do anything but porn but was too ugly to be put in front of the camera. (Id. at 13). The school cook put animal products in Celece's food, even though she was a vegan. (Id.). One teacher taunted Celece by telling her that she was actually an adult male on the inside. Teen boys made lewd gestures at her and engaged in other forms of harassment, including making jokes about raping her. (Id. at 14-16). One boy would walk beside Celece between buildings on campus and force her to "openly engage with him in public areas," even though in accordance with NPL principles she was forbidden to talk to her male peers. (Id. at 16-17).
In October 1996, Celece met a 17-year old boy from Wisconsin on line and began having phone sex with him, including when she was at her mother's home on break. (Id. at 17-18). Celece's mother secretly recorded the phone calls, and ordered Celece to stop talking to the boy only after the boy told Celece that he did not want to have phone sex anymore, but just wanted to talk to her. (Id. at 18). During the same break, Celece's mother dropped a wine bottle on Celece's toe, but refused to take her to seek medical attention. (Id. at 18). When Celece saw a school nurse at Dunn after she returned from break and told her about the incident, the school nurse did not call Child Protective Services. (Id.). During this period, Celece's English teacher repeatedly instructed that a "girl can acquire adult male support [only] if she provides sex to men," and taught the class that "female prostitution is a victimless crime." (Id. at 19). Celece believed his indoctrination. (Id.).
Celece did not feel safe at Dunn School because she knew that her mother could give permission at any time to "kidnappers" who would take her back to Cross Creek Manor in the middle of the night. (Id. at 21). As a "last resort" to obtain protection,Celece decided to follow her English teacher's advice and prostitute herself, even though she was a virgin and wished to remain a virgin until she married. (Id. at 21-22). Celece met a middle aged man through a phone sex chat line. (Id. at 22). He came to Dunn School and took Plaintiff to a nearby hotel, where he gave her drugs and had sex with her. (Id.). In the morning, Celece asked the man to take her back with him to San Francisco, but he refused, and dropped her off at her school. (Id. at 23). Before he left, Celece states that they "intimately kissed" in his vehicle. (Id. at 24).
The "middle aged man" in this incident appears to be Plaintiff "John Doe." In the list of parties, Celece describes John Doe as (Id. at 2). In the only cause of action brought by Plaintiff "John Doe," John Doe states that he was "harmed by getting convicted of one count of corruption of a minor" and was "required to register as a sex offender for 5 years." (Id. at 46). However, this same man is separately sued by name as Defendant Darryl Devon Low, whom Celece describes as:
formerly and currently a resident of San Francisco.2 He is the man who travelled to Dunn School in 1997 to take my virginity, a few weeks after I turned 16. He subsequently had sex with me in a motel room at the time. He was investigated, charged and convicted for one count of corruption of a minor pertaining to what he did to me.
(Id. at 3). Accordingly, "John Doe" appears to be both a Plaintiff and a Defendant in this action, and will be identified as "John Doe/Low" where appropriate.3
After this incident, Celece told a school official that she had previously been sexually abused, apparently before she went to Cross Creek Manor. (Id. at 24). When Celece's mother was informed of the abuse, she decided to return Celece to Cross Creek Manor. (Id. at 24-25). Other faculty and staff at Dunn learned of the abuse and reasoned that that was why Celece "cooperated with [her] sexual assault" by John Doe/Low, even though they should have taken responsibility for their own influence in guiding Celece to prostitution. (Id. at 25). Celece told the Dunn School director that if she were sent back to Cross Creek Manor, she would be killed, but still he did not call Child Protective Services. (Id. at 26).
Celece's mother hired two "adults to extrajudiciously arrest" Celece and take her back to Cross Creek Manor. (Id. at 27). While she was there during this second stay, she was verbally abused by her therapist and staff, one of whom described her as "every pedophile's dream." (Id. at 28). Celece was also...
To continue reading
Request your trial