WAYNE v. ONE CAUCASIAN MALE SUSPECT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03252 (UNA)
)
)
ONE CAUCASIAN MALE SUSPECT, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and
Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. 	The Court grants
Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues a single unnamed defendant,
identified only as a “Coasian Male,” who resides somewhere in Virginia. 	See Compl. at 1–2.
Because Plaintiff has failed to provide a name and full address for the intended Defendant, he has
contravened D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), (g). The allegations fare no better. Plaintiff alleges
only that Defendant trespassed at his property on September 17, 2025, while driving a black
Cadillac Escalade, which he identifies by its purported license plate number. See id. at 4. He does
not demand any relief, stating “no relief . . . no lawsuit.” See id.
Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656
F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) of requires a complaint to contain “(1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 	The
Case 1:25-cv-03252-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 3

Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they
can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of
res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as presented,
neither the Court nor the Defendant can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s claims or
entitlement to relief, if any. 	Neither has Plaintiff established this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
To that same end, 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 has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 	First, he has failed to state a
federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He 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))).
He has also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 	“[T]he
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). 	An “allegation of residence alone is insufficient to establish the citizenship
Case 1:25-cv-03252-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 3

necessary for diversity jurisdiction.” Novak v. Capital Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 	Here, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege Defendant’s
residence, domicile, or citizenship. 	Additionally, Plaintiff has not sought damages, let alone
shown that the amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000.
Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order will issue
contemporaneously.
Date: December 29, 2025
/s/_________________________
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03252-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 3