KHOZA v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BONTLE SIPHO KHOZA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-02831 (UNA)
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 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, a homeless individual in Washington, D.C., sues the District of Columbia and an
“old man that sleeps with his dog in the streets.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1-3. In the jurisdictional
section of the form complaint, Plaintiff checks diversity of citizenship but also writes “4 th
Amendment, 1st Amendment.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that the “elderly looking dude” let go of
the dog’s leash while the dog [was] looking at me,” and the dog then ran toward Plaintiff “barking
as if to bite” him. 	Id. at 4. Although the man “pull[ed] the dog back,” Plaintiff alleges that the
man’s “repeated” actions brought the dog closer to “biting me.” Id. Plaintiff threatened to “get
the police,” which angered the man. “Luckily,” Plaintiff ran across the street “to the police” and
explained the situation “to the secret service” and/or the police. Id. Plaintiff seeks $24 trillion in
punitive damages. Id. at 5.
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
Case 1:25-cv-02831-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 2

2
only when a “federal question” is presented, id. § 1331, or the parties are “citizens of different
States” 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 plead facts that bring the
suit within the court’s jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), or suffer dismissal of the case, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The instant complaint does not present a claim arising under “the Constitution [or] laws
. . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor assert facts establishing the citizenship of the
parties subject to diversity jurisdiction. See Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 414 (D.C.
Cir. 1987) (“[T]he District, like the fifty states, is not subject to diversity jurisdiction.”); Novak v.
Cap. Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Because citizenship “is an essential
element of federal diversity jurisdiction,” the complaining party “bears the burden of pleading the
citizenship of each and every party to the action.”) (quoting Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722
F.2d 779, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
____________________________
Dated: November 12, 2025 	TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
Case 1:25-cv-02831-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 2