WAYNE, JR. v. MCKNIGHT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	25-03135 (UNA)
)
)
KWAN MCKNIGHT et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperis. 	For the following reasons, the Court grants the
application and dismisses the complaint.
Plaintiff, a resident of Washington, D.C., accuses Kwan McKnight and two unnamed
“Coasian” males of “trespassing . . . on Wednesday, September 10, 2025” at his address of record.
Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff seeks “no relief” and writes “no lawsuit.” Id.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must comport with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and
plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for
the relief the pleader seeks. It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-03125-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff has not pleaded the basis of federal court jurisdiction and alleged adequate facts
to “give the defendants fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]”
Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). And federal courts lack power
to entertain complaints, as here, that are “‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question
suitable for decision.’” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best
v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate
order.
_________/s/___________
ANA C. REYES
Date: December 22, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03125-UNA Document 3 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 2