Flores v. Lettman et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________________________________
Valerie Flores,
Plaintiff,
v. 1:25-CV-1833
(AJB/MJK)
Cory Lettman et. al.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
Valerie Flores, Plaintiff pro se
Mitchell J. Katz, U.S. Magistrate Judge
To the Honorable Anthony J. Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
REPORT- RECOMMENDATION
On December 31, 2025, Flores began this action by filing a
Complaint and moving for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
(Dkts. 1, 2). The Clerk sent Flores’s Complaint and IFP application to
this Court for review. (Dkts. 1, 2). This Court reviewed Flores’s
Complaint, granted the IFP application, and recommended the District
Court dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt. 5). The District Court adopted that
recommendation. (Dkt. 8). Flores filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt.
10). This Court now reviews that document.
Case 1:25-cv-01833-AJB-MJK Document 12 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 6

2
I. BACKGROUND
None of the allegations in the Amended Complaint are necessary
for the analysis. See generally (Amended Complaint, Dkt. 10). So the
Court does not include them.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In addition to determining whether plaintiffs meet the financial
criteria to proceed IFP, courts must also review the sufficiency of the
allegations in the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute
requires a court to dismiss a case—at any time—if it determines that
the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
When determining whether an action is frivolous, courts must
consider whether the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or in
fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), abrogated on
other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Dismissal of frivolous actions is appropriate to prevent
abuses of court process and to discourage the waste of judicial
resources. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Harkins v. Eldredge, 505 F.2d 802,
804 (8th Cir. 1974).
Case 1:25-cv-01833-AJB-MJK Document 12 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 6

3
To be sure, courts have a duty to show liberality toward pro se
litigants and must use extreme caution when sua sponte dismissing pro
se complaints before adverse parties have been served and had an
opportunity to respond. See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants
Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding that a district court may
dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when plaintiff has paid
the filing fee). But courts still have a responsibility to determine that a
claim is not frivolous before permitting a plaintiff to proceed. See id.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court recommends the District Court dismiss Flores’s
Complaint. For courts to hear a claim venue must be proper. Here,
Flores concedes that most of the events she alleges occurred in
Wisconsin. Thus, venue is not proper in the Northern District of New
York. In consequence, the Court should dismiss Flores’s Amended
Complaint.
“[F]or venue to be proper, significant events or omissions material
to the plaintiff's claim must have occurred in the district in question,
even if other material events occurred elsewhere.” Chen v. Wang, 793 F.
Supp. 3d 447, 454 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) (emphasis in original) (quoting Gulf
Case 1:25-cv-01833-AJB-MJK Document 12 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2005)). But here,
scouring Flores’s Complaint, none of the allegations occurred in New
York, let alone the Northern District. See, e.g., Basile v. Walt Disney
Co., 717 F. Supp. 2d 381, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that venue is not
proper because “none of the events giving rise to” the plaintiff’s “claims
occurred in New York.”). By Flores’s own words, the events giving rise
to the claim occurred in “mainly” in “Wisconsin” but also in “California,”
“Iowa,” and Illinois. (Amended Complaint, Dkt. 10, at pg. 4). So the
proper venue for this action is a Wisconsin federal court. See Chen, 793
F. Supp. 3d at 454. As a result, this Court is not the right venue for
Flores’s claims.
Flores should not be allowed to amend her Amended Complaint.
Generally, before courts dismiss a pro se complaint or any part of the
complaint on its own, they should afford the plaintiff the opportunity to
amend at least once; but leave to re-plead may be denied where any
amendment would be futile. See Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d
129, 131 (2d Cir. 1993). Futility is present when the problem with a
plaintiff’s causes of action is substantive such that better pleading will
not cure it. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)
Case 1:25-cv-01833-AJB-MJK Document 12 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 6

5
(citation omitted). Here, the District Court gave Flores the opportunity
to amend her Complaint so that it could plausibly allege a claim. The
Amended Complaint does not allege a viable claim in the Northern
District of New York. Allowing Flores to amend her Amended
Complaint will not change that. In consequence, the District Court
should not allow Flores to amend her Amended Complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is
RECOMMENDED, the District Court dismiss Flores’s Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 10) WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITHOUT
LEAVE TO FILE OR AMEND HER COMPLAINT IN THIS
COURT; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order
and Report-Recommendation on Plaintiff by regular mail.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(c), the parties
have 14 days within which to file written objections to the foregoing
report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
1 The Clerk shall also provide Plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited
herein in accordance with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
Case 1:25-cv-01833-AJB-MJK Document 12 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 6

6
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN 14 DAYS
WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Roldan v. Racette,
984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e), 72.
Dated: March 11th, 2026
__________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01833-AJB-MJK Document 12 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 6