Wayne v. McPhee

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 21, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-1913
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01913 (UNA) ) ) WILLIAM MCPHEE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants

Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this matter without

prejudice.

Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues an attorney, William McPhee, who

also appears to reside in the District, and an unnamed “Caucasian male suspect,” who is

purportedly from Maryland. See Compl. at 1–2. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure to provide

full addresses for both the Defendants, and a name for the latter Defendant, contravenes D.C. Local

Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). The allegations fare no better. Plaintiff alleges only that the “Caucasian male

suspect” trespassed at his property on June 18, 2025, while driving a “black two door pickup truck

Toyota Tacoma,” for which he provides a license plate number. Id. at 4. He then alleges, without

additional explanation, “racketeering with locked-up for William McPhee.” Id. He does not

demand relief, stating “no relief…no lawsuit.” See id.

Pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656

F. Supp. 237, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal Rule 8(a) of requires a complaint to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir.

2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted

so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense. Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as presented, neither the Court nor Defendants can

reasonably be expected to identify Plaintiff’s claims or entitlement to relief, if any, nor has Plaintiff

established this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

To that end, 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 has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 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.”).

Plaintiff has also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff

and Defendant McPhee are both located in the District of Columbia, thereby defeating any diversity jurisdiction. See Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373–74 (1978)) (“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 somehow exceeds

$75,000.

Consequently, this case is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order will issue

contemporaneously.

Date: August 21, 2025 __________/s/_________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge