Wayne Jr. v. African American Male

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 13, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2276
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-02276 (UNA) ) ) AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE 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 “three [unidentified] male suspects” of

“trespassing . . . on Wednesday July 16, 2025,” at a residence in the District’s southeast quadrant.

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). Plaintiff has not pleaded a basis for federal court jurisdiction and 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). Moreover, 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)). Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate

order.

_________/s/_____________ JIA M. COBB Date: August 13, 2025 United States District Judge