Flores v. Tharp
- Stanton
- 1:26-cv-05479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Flores v. Tharp: Judge Stanton dismissed the action for wrong venue and denied Flores’s motion for pro bono counsel.
Valerie Flores and the defendants named in the action—Rickisha Tharp, Scott Tharp, and “2 unknown spouses.”
What happened
In Valerie Flores v. Rickisha Tharp, et al., Valerie Flores, representing herself, accused the defendants of identity theft and cited several federal criminal laws. She sought damages and appeared also to seek criminal prosecution.
The court treated the case as a state-law damages action based on diversity jurisdiction. It concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue because the defendants appeared to reside in Wisconsin and the alleged events occurred elsewhere.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action under the federal venue statute instead of transferring it, finding that transfer was not in the interest of justice. He also denied Flores’s motion for pro bono counsel.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Tharp · No. 1:26-cv-05479
- Stanton
- July 16, 2026
Background
Valerie Flores, who stated that she resides in New York, appeared without a lawyer. She invoked diversity jurisdiction and identified several federal criminal statutes as the legal bases for her claims. She named Rickisha Tharp, Scott Tharp, and “2 unknown spouses” as defendants. The opinion states that Flores appeared to accuse the defendants of identity theft and sought damages and criminal prosecution.
The court held that Flores could not seek the defendants’ criminal prosecution because a private person does not have standing—the legal right—to request that remedy. The court therefore treated the action as asserting state-law damages claims under diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously granted Flores permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. Flores also filed a motion for pro bono counsel that was styled for the District of New Jersey.
Venue analysis
Federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court found that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue under these rules.
The opinion states that Rickisha Tharp and Scott Tharp were alleged to reside in Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin, and that the other defendants also appeared to reside in Wisconsin. It further states that the alleged events appeared to have occurred in Wilmington, Delaware; McFarland, Wisconsin; Madison, Wisconsin; and Bayonne, New Jersey. The court identified the District of Delaware, the Western District of Wisconsin, and the District of New Jersey as districts that appeared to be proper venues.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or transfer it if transfer would serve the interest of justice. The court discussed Flores’s history of filing cases without a lawyer in this court and other federal courts, as described in an earlier related proceeding. It also noted that other federal courts had imposed filing restrictions against her and that this court had previously transferred cases she filed because venue was improper.
The court determined that, in light of that history, it was not in the interest of justice to transfer this action. Judge Louis L. Stanton therefore dismissed the action under Section 1406(a) because it was brought in the wrong venue. The court separately denied Flores’s motion for pro bono counsel and directed the clerk to terminate that motion and enter judgment dismissing the action.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.