Wayne v. McKnight

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2525
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02525 (UNA)

KWAN MCKNIGHT, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP

Application and, for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

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, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues an individual, Kwan McKnight,

who also resides somewhere in the District, and four other unnamed individuals, three of whom

reside somewhere in the District, and one of whom resides somewhere in Maryland. See Compl.

1 at 1, 3–4. He does not provide full addresses for the Defendants, in contravention of D.C. Local

Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). The allegations themselves are spare; Plaintiff alleges only that, on August

4, 2025, Defendants trespassed at his property, and he identifies their vehicles by make, model,

and license plate number. See id. at 7–8. Plaintiff does not plead for any relief, stating “no relief,

no lawsuit.” Id. at 7.

Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. First, he has failed to state a

federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff 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))).

Second, 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

action is 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. Cap. 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 citizenships.

Assuming that Defendants are citizens of the respective states noted, Plaintiff still fails to

establish diversity jurisdiction because both he and four of the Defendants are domiciled in the 2 District, thus defeating complete diversity. See Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C.

2007) (“For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be complete diversity between

the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the same state as any

defendant.”). Moreover, Plaintiff has not demanded any damages, let alone alleged that the amount

in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000.

Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A

separate Order will issue contemporaneously.

Date: October 24, 2025 _______________________ CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge