Williams v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-3306
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KAWANA JEFFER WILLIAMS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 24-3306 (UNA) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and her pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and, for the

reasons discussed below, dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff alleges “that the deployment and use of 5G technology . . . has led to increased

risks of cancer and other health issues.” Compl. at 6 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF).

She faults the federal government for its alleged negligence, failure to put “adequate safety and

privacy measures” in place, and the “lack of comprehensive federal regulations and oversight,”

thereby causing a public health crisis. Id. Plaintiff claims to “suffer[] from the effects of 5G

radiation, including psychological distress, emotional abuse, and personal injury.” Id. at 7.

Among other relief, plaintiff demands an unspecified award of damages “for psychological

distress, emotional abuse, personal injury, and other related harms[.]” Id.

It appears that plaintiff’s claim, if such claim is viable, would proceed under the Federal

Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680, which waives the United States’

sovereign immunity “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be

liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission

occurred.” Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. United States, 569 F.3d 506, 508 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

1 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1)). Assuming that the FTCA applies in the circumstances of this

case, the claim fails because plaintiff does not meet the threshold requirement that a “claimant

shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and [her] claim shall have

been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2675(a). This exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, and absent any showing by plaintiff

that she has exhausted her administrative remedies, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

See Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 F. App’x 445, 445-46 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(affirming the district court's dismissal of unexhausted FTCA claim “for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction”); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: February 20, 2025 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge