Opinion
21-cv-529-jdp
09-27-2023
VALERIE L. FLORES, Plaintiff, v. STONEHOUSE DEVELOPMENT and KRISTIE JOHNSON, Defendants.
ORDER
JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge
Plaintiff Valerie L. Flores's motion to amend her amended complaint, Dkt. 73, is DENIED because her new allegations against her former neighbor wouldn't state a claim under the Fair Housing Act. Flores's motion for subpoenas, Dkt. 74, is DENIED without prejudice because it's conclusory: Flores doesn't explain why she seeks subpoenas from the individuals whom she lists in her motion. Flores is free to renew her motion for subpoenas, but she will have to specifically explain: (1) whether she has secured someone who is not a party to this case to serve the subpoenas; (2) whether she has the financial means to cover any potential costs associated with serving the subpoenas; (3) what information she seeks to obtain; and (4) why she can't obtain the information through traditional discovery requests. Flores's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of New York, Dkt. 82, is DENIED with prejudice: venue is not proper in any judicial district in New York, as the court's prior orders indicate. Flores may not file any more motions to transfer venue to New York. The other allegations in the motion to transfer are DENIED because they are conclusory and largely outside the scope of the claims on which I allowed Flores to proceed. In any case, it's doubtful that I could grant injunctive relief because Flores no longer resides in Wisconsin. Flores's warrant for the arrest of witnesses, Dkt. 86, is STRUCK as premature: it's too early to tell whether this case will proceed to trial. The clerk of court is directed to UNSEAL Dkt. 73 and Dkt. 88.