Williams, Patricia v. Dept. of Workforce Development et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying plaintiff Patricia Williams's "motion to change venue," dkt. #9(in case nos. 17-cv-253-bbc and 17-cv-255-bbc) and dkt. #14 (in case no. 17-cv-254-bbc). Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/21/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PATRICIA WILLIAMS,

OPINION and ORDER

Plaintiff,

17-cv-253-bbc

v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, DELORA NEWTON,
ENID GLENN, KARL DAHLEN, SHERI POLLOCK,
JOSEPH LEDGER and ANDRE SMALL,
Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PATRICIA WILLIAMS,

OPINION and ORDER

Plaintiff,

17-cv-254-bbc

v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, JOSEPH LEDGER and ANDRE SMALL,
Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PATRICIA WILLIAMS,

OPINION and ORDER

Plaintiff,

17-cv-255-bbc

v.

1

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, KARL DAHLEN,
SHERRI POLLOCK, MEREDITH DRESSEL,
NICHOLAS LAMPONE, ENID GLENN
and DELORI NEWTON,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this these three cases, pro se plaintiff Patricia Williams is suing the Wisconsin
Department of Workforce Development and several of its employees for discriminating and
retaliating against her in various ways. After screening amended complaints in each case, I
concluded that consolidation of the cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 was appropriate, as
plaintiff had argued in an earlier motion.
Now plaintiff has filed a motion to transfer one of the cases, case no. 17-cv-254-bbc,
to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Although this request is at odds with her earlier
request for consolidation, plaintiff does not explain why she is seeking transfer of only one
case. In any event, plaintiff has not shown that transfer is appropriate. In her one-page
motion, plaintiff says that the case should be transferred in accordance with Wis. Stat. §
227.52, but that statute says nothing about venue and, even if it did, state law venue
provisions have no bearing on a case pending in federal court.
The only fact relevant to transfer that plaintiff alleges in her motion is that “the
discriminatory treatment being reviewed happened in Milwaukee County.” Plaintiff does
not provide any context for that allegation, which is not included in any of her complaints.
Even if I assume that some of the alleged conduct occurred in Milwaukee County, this would

2

not mean that transfer is appropriate. Plaintiff chose to file her lawsuit in this district, where
the Department of Workforce Development is located. She does not allege that any of the
defendants live or work in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Particularly because plaintiff
is seeking transfer of only one of three cases that have been consolidated at her request, a
conclusory allegation that an event relevant to one case may have occurred in a different
district is not a sufficient ground for transferring the case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Patricia Williams’s “motion to change venue,” dkt. #9
(in case nos. 17-cv-253-bbc and 17-cv-255-bbc) and dkt. #14 (in case no. 17-cv-254-bbc),
is DENIED.
Entered this 21st day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3