LASISI v. MCKINNEY et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHAKIRA LASISI, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 26-00812 (UNA)
)
)
WILLIAM MCKINNEY et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
“This action arises from tortious conduct and violations of civil rights” that allegedly
occurred “at or near” a McDonald’s restaurant in the District’s northwest quadrant. Compl. ¶ 1,
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff sues McDonald’s Corporation, William McKinney, who is “believed to be an
employee, agent, or individual associated with” the McDonald’s restaurant, and unknown
witnesses John Doe and Jane Doe. 	Id. ¶ 2. 	Allegedly, on August 29, 2025, Plaintiff suffered
“burning sensations and irritation to the skin and lower extremities” when “a chemical agent was
discharged toward Plaintiff” while “near the McDonald’s restaurant[.]” 	Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff
“subsequently sought medical treatment at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital.” 	Id.
McKinney “falsely accused plaintiff of attempting to run him over with a vehicle” and “further
alleged that plaintiff assaulted him by throwing or using a cup of soda.” 	Id. 	McKinney
“communicated” those accusations to “responding law enforcement officers,” which led to
Plaintiff’s arrest and detention in D.C.’s “jail system for approximately 60 days.” Id. Plaintiff’s
Case 1:26-cv-00812-UNA Document 6 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
claims are Count 1- Assault and Battery; Count II – False Accusation and Defamation; Count III
– Negligence and Premises Liability. 	Id. ¶ 5. 	Plaintiff seeks $3 million in compensatory and
punitive damages. Id. ¶ 10.
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
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 plead facts that bring the suit within the
court’s jurisdiction or suffer dismissal of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff’s three enumerated claims are based on D.C. common law, not federal law. Nor
does Plaintiff’s mention of civil rights violations state a claim “arising under” the Constitution or
federal law. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	In addition, “diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each
defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff,” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v.
Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (emphases in original), and the citizenship requirement must be
“assessed at the time the suit is filed,” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426,
428 (1991). 	Therefore, the party asserting jurisdiction must plead “the citizenship of each and
every party to the action.” 	Novak v. Cap. Mgmt. & Dev. Corp., 452 F.3d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir.
2006). An “allegation of residence alone” does not suffice. Id. (cleaned up).
Plaintiff has not pleaded each party’s citizenship to proceed under the diversity statute nor
established any other basis for federal court jurisdiction. Therefore, this case will be dismissed by
separate order.
_________/s/______________
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: May 7, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00812-UNA Document 6 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 2