Williams v. Gathering Spot

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 15, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0679
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KAWANA J. WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-00679 (UNA) ) ) THE GATHERING SPOT et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court grants

the application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff brings this suit against a private business and its General Manager/Owner.

Compl. at 2. Plaintiff is a “founding member and corporate account holder” of the D.C.-based

business. She asserts that Defendants violated her rights under the First and Fourth Amendments

and deprived her of due process when they “failed to provide [her] an opportunity to respond

before making a decision that negatively impacted her membership and professional reputation.”

Id. at 6. In Count I of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants ridiculed and chastised her

“for speaking up for herself,” in violation of the First Amendment. In Count II, she alleges that

“Defendants’ refusal to handle certified mail and potential unauthorized access to [her] personal

communications and property constitute unreasonable searches and seizures,” in violation of the

Fourth Amendment. Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks $45 million in damages. Id. at 4.

“It is fundamental that the First Amendment binds only the actions of the Government

and does not apply to actions of private persons or entities.” Johnson v. Commission on Presidential Debates, 202 F. Supp. 3d 159, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing cases). The same goes for

violations of the Fourth Amendment, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 (1921), and the

Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, Curry v. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357, 370 (1939),

applicable to the District of Columbia, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954).

“‘A challenged activity may be state action . . . when a private actor operates as a willful

participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.’” Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d

412, 414 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531

U.S. 288, 296 (2001)). Plaintiff fails to allege facts that would support a finding or reasonable

inference that the government was somehow involved in the conduct alleged. The Court will,

accordingly, dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A separate order will issue.

_________/s/____________ RANDOLPH D. MOSS Date: May 15, 2025 United States District Judge