WAYNE v. TWO MALE SUSPECTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02600 (UNA)
)
)
TWO MALE SUSPECTS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
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 two unnamed individuals––a
“Coasian male” who lives somewhere in Maryland, and a “Mix African male,” who lives, yet more
broadly, somewhere in the United States. 	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 8, 2025, and he provides the make, model, color, and license plate number for
their vehicles. 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) 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
Case 1:25-cv-02600-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

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. 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)).
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
Case 1:25-cv-02600-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

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 Defendants, let alone
their domiciles or state citizenships. Moreover, Plaintiff has not demanded any damages, nor can
the Court otherwise determinate that the amount in controversy somehow exceeds $75,000.
Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order will issue
contemporaneously.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: November 13, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02600-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3