WAYNE v. AFRICAN MALE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02574 (UNA)
)
)
AFRICAN MALE 	)
District of Columbia Government Employee, )
)
Defendants 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and
Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP
Application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth
generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available
only when a “federal question” is presented, id. § 1331, or the parties are of diverse citizenship
and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs,” id. § 1332(a). A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring
the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants
dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, see Compl. at 1, sues an unnamed
individual, referred to only as “District of Columbia Government Employee” and “African Male,”
who also resides somewhere in the District, see id. at 1–2. The allegations themselves are spare;
Plaintiff alleges only that, on August 6, 2025, Defendant trespassed at his property, and he
Case 1:25-cv-02574-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

identifies Defendant’s vehicle by make, model, and license plate number. See id. at 4. 	Plaintiff
does not plead for any relief, stating “no relief, no lawsuit.” Id.
Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 	First, he has failed to state a
federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a
federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question
jurisdiction from the facts given in the complaint. See Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522
(D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[F]ederal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and
distinctly.” (quoting Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam)).
Second, Plaintiff has also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
It is a “well-established rule” that the diverse citizenship requirement be “assessed at the time the
suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). Therefore,
“the citizenship of every party to the action must be distinctly alleged [in the complaint] and cannot
be established presumptively or by mere inference,” Meng v. Schwartz, 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55
(D.D.C. 2004), and an “‘allegation of residence alone is insufficient to establish the citizenship
necessary for diversity jurisdiction,’” Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 792 n.20 (D.C. Cir.
1983)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the residences of the Defendant, let alone
their domicile or citizenship.
Assuming that Defendant is a citizen of the District of Columbia, where he appears to
currently reside, Plaintiff has still failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, because both he and
Defendant are ostensibly citizens of the District, thus defeating complete diversity. See Bush v.
Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (“For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,
there must be complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be
Case 1:25-cv-02574-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

a citizen of the same state as any defendant.”). Moreover, Plaintiff has not demanded any damages,
let alone alleged that the amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000.
Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A
separate Order will issue contemporaneously.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 13, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02574-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3