Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Marriott International LLC

United States District Court, District of Columbia

May 3, 2019

Kelly Miller, Plaintiff,
v.
Marriott International LLC et al., Defendants.

          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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.