Wayne, Jr. v. McKnight

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3125
• Status: Published

Opinion

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). 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