MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMIT
P. MEHTA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Kelly Miller, appearing pro se, has sued Marriott
International, Inc., the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
(“MPD”), D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, D.C.
Superior Court Judge Fern Saddler, and the D.C. Superior
Court Domestic Violence Unit. Am. Compl., ECF No. 34, at 1.
This case is before the court on Marriott International's
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 35, and the District of Columbia
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 38. The defendants
assert that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. For the reasons explained below,
both motions are granted.
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Basis for Claims Against Marriott International and
MPD
For
present purposes, Plaintiff's factual allegations are
accepted as true. Plaintiff “is currently disabled and
has been certified disabled for the last two years.”
Am. Compl. at 7. She “requires” a cane “to
walk about.” Id. Plaintiff holds the
“cane in her right hand for mobility” and
“pull[s] her luggage” with her left hand, thereby
leaving nothing “extra . . . for safely carrying
beverages or other purchased articles.” Id.
Since 2014, Plaintiff has rented a Post Office Box located at
the U.S. Postal Service in the lower level of the
Marriott-owned Renaissance Hotel (“Hotel”) in the
District of Columbia. Id. This action stems from an
incident at the Hotel, which resulted in the issuance of a
notice barring Plaintiff from the Hotel's lobby for five
years. See Barring Notice, ECF No. 63.
On the
morning of April 3, 2018, while waiting for the Post Office
to open at 8:30 a.m., Plaintiff left her luggage “next
to the seat she would be sitting in” and proceeded to
“the ‘Starbucks' restaurant to retrieve a
beverage to consume[.]” Am. Compl. at 7. Plaintiff
returned to her seat and was in the process of accessing the
Hotel's “free WI-FI Service” when she was
approached by “Hotel Loss Prevention Officer Patrick
McBride, ” who “in a hateful authoritative manner
demand[ed] to know if the luggage beside the Plaintiff . . .
belonged” to her. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff
answered “yes, ” and McBride told her that the
Hotel's cameras had captured her “luggage
unattended.” Id. at 8. “Plaintiff . . .
explained, what was clearly obvious to all, that with [her]
open disability Plaintiff was not able to manage [her]
luggage as well as a beverage therefore, as numerous past
previous acts allowed[, ] Plaintiff placed the luggage beside
the chair and proceeded to utilize the ‘Starbucks'
and immediately returned to claim [her] luggage.”
Id. McBride then asked Plaintiff if she was a paid
guest of the Hotel, “to which [she] responded she was
not a paid guest[;] however, she was a paid patron of the
businesses located within” the Hotel, i.e.,
the Starbucks and the U.S. Postal Service. Id.
McBride “immediately informed Plaintiff in a
condescending and loud tone that she would not be allowed to
access her postal box” and “demanded Plaintiff
leave the hotel immediately or he would call the police to
have [her] removed[.]” Id. Plaintiff asked if
“all other patrons in the room would be questioned
[about] their guest status” or whether the
“demand” for her “to exit the hotel or be
arrested” was “a targeted discriminatory
act[.]” Id. Plaintiff then “sat down and
waited for the police as [she] had committed no Criminal act
to have her lawful rights removed or threatened.”
Id.
When
MPD officers arrived, Plaintiff “refused” their
request to produce identification and was
“advised” that “if she continued to refuse
to leave, ” she would be arrested. Id. at 8.
The MPD officers declined Plaintiff's request to
“view the video and inform [her] of what Criminal act
they [saw her] committing” to justify the demand that
she “exit or be incarcerated.” Id. at 9.
Plaintiff “instructed the Defendants” that she
was going to the restroom “and would return
shortly.” Id. When she returned, “the
two Defendants had drafted a ‘document' . . .
citing ‘loitering and disturbing the business' as
cause for removal and threat of incarceration.”
Id. “Within the document[, ] defendants placed
a 5 year Stay Away or the Plaintiff . . . would be
incarcerated.” Id. An MPD officer escorted
Plaintiff to her Post Office Box and while there
“instructed the Postal worker” that “if
Plaintiff ever came to access her postal box again[, ] the
postal worker was to call the police and have Plaintiff
arrested.” Id.
Plaintiff
claims that Marriott “thru their paid employees . . .
unlawfully conspired to engage in unlawful targeted
‘joint activity' of malicious unified collusion
with” MPD “and its employees . . . to target and
threaten loss of freedom by incarceration of Plaintiff . . .
for performing the identical Constitutional act of Freely
accessing [her] . . . United States Postal box for business
and personal ‘commerce'[.]” Id. at 7
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1951).
B.
Factual Basis for Additional Claims Against the D.C.
Defendants
1.
MPD
Based
upon events seemingly unrelated to the foregoing, Plaintiff
accuses MPD of retaliation by “refusing to
uphold” her rights. Id. at 9. Plaintiff
alleges that in September 2015, she was “violently
physically assaulted by Carlton Warren, ” who
“was incarcerated for [the] assault[.]” Am.
Compl. at 9. Apparently, Plaintiff filed a civil action in
Superior Court and in June 2018 was awarded a judgment
against Warren for $10, 500. At some point, Plaintiff also
obtained a stay-away order.[1] Meanwhile, on May 16, 2018,
Plaintiff sued MPD “for targeted abuse of power under
the color of the law as well as withholding constitutional
rights and protection.” Id. Thereafter, on May
26, 2018, “D.C. Police openly stated they would not
arrest Carlton Warren for his blatant violation of the Stay
Away, ” and in June 2018, Warren “continued to
Stalk Plaintiff on three other occasions all of which the
D.C. Police refused to [e]nforce the lawful Stay Away.”
Id. at 9-10. “As a direct result of”
Warren's “continued violations of lawful Stay Away
supported by the DC Police, ” Plaintiff “was
granted a CPO” against Warren on September 10, 2018.
Id. at 10.
2.
Attorney General Racine
Plaintiff
next accuses D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine of
“targeted direct retaliation.” Id. at
10. In 2015, Plaintiff sued two security guards in D.C.
Superior Court “for unlawfully threatening [her] for
entering the courthouse with a bogus BOLO.”
Id. The D.C. Attorney General's Office
represented the security guards even though their employer
was a privately owned business and despite Racine
“being repeatedly informed” that the guards did
not qualify for such representation. Id.
Also,
in 2015, “the DC Attorney General's Office violated
Plaintiff's Constitutional rights by unlawfully filing a
praecipe refusing to review any filings submitted to the
Domestic Violence court.” Id. The Office
refused to prosecute despite the physical signs of abuse,
i.e., “black eyes” and bruised legs
“for 5 weeks, ” as well as the admissions to rape
by “all three assailants[.]” Id. In
addition, the D.C. Superior Court Crime Victims Program had
“placed Plaintiff in the Safe House program, ”
and paid expenses for lodging, meals transportation and
storage “for each incident meriting the violence
Plaintiff suffered and proving the DC Attorney General's
Office was unconstitutionally withholding Plaintiff's
right to lawful assistance.” Id.
In
September 2016, Plaintiff “was violently raped.”
She “filed with the DC Police and DC Attorney
General's office requesting assistance in arresting
Lawrence Allen Watkins for committing the violent act against
Plaintiff.” Id. Both “refused to
arrest” Watkins, who “was continually stalking
Plaintiff[.]” Id. Plaintiff sued Watkins in
D.C. Superior Court and “won by Default as . . .
Watkins appeared on two occasions and then failed to continue
to appear and defend himself.” Id. On
September 15, 2017, ...