In Re: Valerie Flores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE: VALERIE FLORES,
Respondent.
1:26-PF-00001 (BKS)
PRE-FILING ORDER AND TERMINATION OF MFT PRIVILEGES
I. 	PRE-FILING INJUNCTION
On January 20, 2026, Valerie Flores (“Respondent”) was ordered by the undersigned to
show cause as to why she should not be enjoined from filing any new actions as a pro se plaintiff
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York without prior
permission of the Chief Judge or his or her designee. (Dkt. No. 1 (“OTSC”)). On January 7,
2026, prior to the Court’s issuance of the OTSC, Flores filed a response to United States District
Judge Glenn T. Suddaby’s Text Order, referring Respondent to the undersigned to consider
whether a pre-filing order was warranted. See Flores v. Credit One Bank, No. 25-cv-683, Dkt.
No. 9 (Text Order); Dkt. No. 12 (Response). On February 3, 2026, Respondent filed a response
to the OTSC. (Dkt. No. 2 (Response)). The Court has considered both Responses.
In her Responses, Respondent opposes the imposition of a pre-filing order, summarizes
the factual backgrounds of the cases she has filed in the Northern District of New York, notes her
pro se status and the difficulty she has had finding legal counsel, and states that she does not like
her cases being transferred to Wisconsin, where she does not believe she will receive a fair
hearing. In her January 7, 2026, Response to Judge Suddaby, Respondent stated that she planned
to file “one or two more cases” but no more. Since January 7, 2026, however, Respondent has
filed 10 new cases. See Flores v. Topp, No. 26-cv-00056 (filed Jan. 12, 2026); Flores v. Ward,
No. 26-cv-00061 (filed Jan. 12, 2026); Flores v. Smith, No. 26-cv-00121 (filed Jan. 26, 2026);
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 8

2
Flores v. KW Call Center Services, No. 26-cv-00122 (filed Jan. 26, 2026); Flores v. Ada James
Place, No. 26-cv-00123 (filed Jan. 26, 2026); Flores v. Cody, No. 26-cv-00137 (filed Jan. 27,
2026); Flores v. Mnookin, No. 26-cv-00148 (filed Jan. 28, 2026); Flores v. Pope Sr., No. 26-cv-
00159 (filed Feb. 2, 2026); Flores v. Honda of Greenbelt, No. 26-cv-00160 (filed Feb. 1, 2026);
Flores v. Flemming, No. 26-cv-00170 (filed Feb. 2, 2026). The Court therefore finds
Respondent’s representation in her January 7, 2026 Response to Judge Suddaby that she would
file only “one or two” more cases, disingenuous. In addition, the Responses do not meaningfully
address the concerns the Court articulated in the OTSC and fail to provide any basis for
concluding that a pre-filing order is not warranted. Indeed, Respondent’s conduct in filing eight
new actions pro se following the Court’s issuance of the OTSC does little to alleviate the Court’s
concern regarding vexatious and frivolous filings.
II. 	TERMINATION OF MFT PRIVILEGES
In reviewing Respondent’s litigation practices in the 43 cases she has filed in the
Northern District, Respondent’s misuse of the MFT electronic filing system has come to the
Court’s attention. Not only have several of Respondent’s filings have been stricken for violating
Local Rule 26.2, which prohibits the filing of discovery materials, but on January 5, 2026,
Respondent was cautioned that MFT privileges could be revoked if she continued submitting
filings in violation of the Local Rules. See, e.g., Flores v. Hoye, No. 25-cv-01743, Dkt. No. 6
(Text Order filed Jan. 5, 2026 striking statement from docket and cautioning that MFT privileges
may be revoked by the Court in view of “pattern of filing, via MFT frivolous and irrelevant
filings in violation of the N.D.N.Y. Local Rules in dockets 25-cv-01743, 25-cv-1745, 25-cv-
1757, and 25-cv-1838”). As Respondent has continued to file documents that fail to comply with
the Local Rules, see, e.g., Flores v. Delaware North, No. 25-cv-01757, Dkt. No. 10 (Text Order
striking document filed on Jan. 23, 2026 for violating Local Rule 26.2), despite being warned
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 8

3
that her MFT privileges may be revoked, the Court hereby terminates Respondent’s MFT filing
privileges. See N.D.N.Y. L.R. 10.1(c)(3) (“Failure to adhere to these requirements may result in
. . . [the] terminat[ion of] the filer’s MFT submission privileges.”). Accordingly, all future
submissions must be filed via mail sent to the United States District Court Clerk’s Office for the
Northern District of New York or in-person by bringing the submission to the Clerk’s Office.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for all the reasons stated in the OTSC, (Dkt. No. 1), and for the reasons
stated herein, Respondent is permanently enjoined from filing any new civil action pro se
without prior permission of the Chief Judge or his or her designee, subject to the requirements
outlined below.
NOTICE TO PRO SE LITIGANT: FAILURE TO STRICTLY
COMPLY 	WITH 	THE 	REQUIREMENTS 	OUTLINED
BELOW MAY SUBJECT YOU TO FURTHER SANCTIONS.
It is hereby
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), Respondent is permanently enjoined
from filing any new actions1 as a pro se plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York without prior permission of the Chief Judge or his or her
designee,2 subject to the requirements outlined below; and it is further
1 The filings subject to this Order include filings of documents by Respondent as a pro se plaintiff in: (1) a new action
opened by her in this Court through the filing of a complaint, a motion, an application, or any other means; (2) an
action opened by her in another federal district court and transferred to this Court, when that action clearly should
have been venued in this District, see In re: Leon R. Koziol, 15-AF-0005, Order, at 2–3 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. filed Dec.
19, 2019) (collecting cases); and (3) an action opened by her in state court and removed to this Court by any party,
when that action was laden with federal claims (especially claims based on grounds previously trodden by Respondent
in this Court, and asserted against defendants who had been previously sued by her in this Court on similar grounds),
see In re: Leon R. Koziol, 15-AF-0005, Order, at 2–5 & n.3 (N.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 19, 2019) (collecting cases).
2 This injunction does not apply to pending actions.
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 8

4
ORDERED that the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York shall maintain the current file (1:26-PF-00001) with the general title “In Re: Valerie
Flores.” Unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Judge or his or her designee, this file shall serve
as the repository of all orders relating to Respondent in this District, pleadings or documents
submitted under the procedures set forth herein, and any order entered pursuant thereto. The
Clerk of the Court shall also maintain a docket sheet associated with this case number and shall
list all documents filed therein; and it is further
ORDERED that, before filing any new actions pro se in the Court, Respondent must first
obtain permission from the Chief Judge or his or her designee. To do so, Respondent must
submit to the Court three documents in the form described below: (1) a petition requesting leave
to file; (2) an affidavit containing information specified below; and (3) a copy of the pleading or
document sought to be filed. The filing shall be entitled “Application Pursuant to Court Order
Seeking Leave to File,” and shall contain the assigned file number in the caption; and it is further
ORDERED that a petition requesting leave to file must contain the following
information:
(1) a statement advising the Court whether any defendant to the lawsuit was a party,
litigant, judge, attorney, court officer, public official or participant to, or was in any way
involved in, any prior lawsuit or bankruptcy proceeding involving Respondent, and if so,
in what capacity;
(2) a list of all lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and state courts in which
Respondent was or is a party, including (a) the name, case number and citation, if
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 8

5
applicable, of each lawsuit, and (b) a statement indicating the nature of Respondent’s
involvement in each lawsuit and its current status or disposition;
(3) a list of all federal or state cases in which a judgment was rendered against
Respondent, if any, including (a) the name, case number and citation, if applicable, (b)
the amount of the judgment rendered against her, and (c) the amount, if any, of the
judgment that remains outstanding and the reasons therefore;
(4) a list of all federal or state cases in which a judgment was rendered in favor of
Respondent, if any, including the name, case number and citation, if applicable; and
(5) a list identifying the procedural or monetary sanctions, assessment of attorneys’ fees,
contempt orders or jail sentences arising out of a civil prosecution imposed against
Respondent by any court, including all appellate courts, if any, including (a) the name,
case number and citation, if applicable, of each case, (b) a brief statement explaining the
sanctions, contempt order, attorneys’ fees or jail sentence imposed, (c) the type or amount
of sanctions, (d) the outstanding amount of any sanctions or attorneys’ fees, and (e) the
current status or disposition of the matter; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall also submit (with the above-described petition) an
affidavit, in the proper legal form, under oath and notarized, containing the following recitals:
(1) that the pleading or claims which Respondent wishes to present, or the relief which
she seeks, has never before been raised by her and disposed of by any federal or state
court and are not, to the best of her knowledge, barred by the doctrines of collateral
estoppel or res judicata;
(2) that (a) to the best of Respondent’s knowledge the claim or claims are not frivolous or
asserted in bad faith, (b) they are well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 8

6
a good-faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and (c)
the lawsuit is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, or to avoid the execution
of a valid judgment;
(3) that the claim or claims are not meant to harass any judicial officer, attorney,
individual, organization or entity; and
(4) that, in prosecuting the action, Respondent will comply with all federal and local rules
of procedure, including those requiring the service on other parties of all pleadings and
documents filed with the Court, and will provide the Court with acceptable proof that
such service was made; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall include with the above-described petition and affidavit
a copy of the pleading and/or any other document(s) to be filed with the Court, and that the
pleading and/or document(s) shall conform with the requirements of this Pre-Filing Order,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, all other provisions contained in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the District’s Local Rules of Practice; and it is further
ORDERED that, upon filing of an Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to
File, the Clerk or his or her designated deputy shall docket the pleading and/or document(s) in
the case and in accordance with the rules, and immediately forward them to the Chief Judge or
his or her designee for review; and it is further
ORDERED that, in deciding such an Application, the Chief Judge or his or her designee
should consider the following:
(1) whether Respondent has complied with the procedures set forth in this Pre-Filing
Order in all particulars;
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 8

7
(2) whether Respondent’s pleading and/or document(s) comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the District’s Local Rules of Practice;
(3) whether the Respondent’s pleading and/or document(s) are frivolous, abusive,
harassing or malicious;
(4) whether the claims asserted in Respondent’s pleading have been adjudicated
previously by any state or federal court;
(5) whether Respondent has complied in all respects with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and all
pleadings and documents would not give rise to liability for unreasonable and vexatious
multiple filings;
(6) whether the pleading asserts claims against judges, court officials, public officers or
any other individuals who may have immunity from suit; and
(7) whether the pleading and/or document(s) meet such other reasonable requirements
established by the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that failure to comply with the procedures and principles set forth in this
Order shall be grounds for denying the Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to
File without further review. Likewise, false or misleading recitals in the pleading or document
shall be grounds for denial and may subject Respondent to further sanctions under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and/or the Court’s inherent power to sanction a litigant
for bad-faith conduct or for disobeying court orders; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent is further advised that nothing in this Pre-Filing Order (a)
hinders her ability to defend herself in any criminal action brought against her, (b) limits her
access to any court other than the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 8

8
York, or (c) affects her rights in any of her currently pending actions in state or federal court; and
it is further
ORDERED that Respondent’s MFT privileges are TERMINATED and all submissions
must be mailed to the United States District Court Clerk’s Office for the Northern District of
New York or filed in-person at the Clerk’s Office; and it is
CERTIFIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Pre-Filing
Order would not be taken in good faith; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Pre-Filing Order on Respondent by
regular and certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Syracuse, NY
Case 1:26-pf-00001-BKS Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 8