WAYNE v. THREE CAUCASIAN MALE SUSPECTS

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JESUS A. WAYNE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02591 (UNA)
THREE CAUCASIAN MALE
SUSPECTS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), 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, dismisses this case without
prejudice.
Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues three unnamed “Coasian male
suspects” all of whom are purportedly reside somewhere in Maryland. See Compl. at 1–2. The
Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure to provide names and addresses for the Defendants contravenes
D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). The allegations fare no better. Plaintiff alleges only that
Defendants trespassed at his property on August 7, 2025, and he provides the make, model, color,
and license plate number of their vehicle. See id. at 4. Plaintiff 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) 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
Case 1:25-cv-02591-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 3

2
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir.
2004). The 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 Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s
claims or entitlement to relief, if any, nor has Plaintiff established this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
To that 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))).
Second, Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It is a
“well- established rule” that, for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must
Case 1:25-cv-02591-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 3

3
be “assessed at the time the action 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) (citation omitted). “[A]n 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) (emphasis deleted) (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 Defendants, let alone their domiciles or state
citizenships. Moreover, Plaintiff has not sought any damages, let alone alleged that the amount in
controversy somehow exceeds $75,000.
Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order will issue
contemporaneously.
DATE: November 21, 2025
CARL J. NICHOLS
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02591-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 3