Wayne v. McPhee

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 16, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1551
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01551 (UNA) ) ) WILLIAM MCPHEE, ) ) Defendant. )

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 (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The Court grants

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

prejudice.

Plaintiff sues a single individual, William McPhee, who is purportedly the “Chief Justice

of the World.” See Compl. at 1–2. Plaintiff alleges only [sic] “racketeering with locked-up for

William McPhee abanden by William McPhee at 500 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C.

20003 on Tuesday May 5, 2026.” Id. at 4. 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 and determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Here, as

presented, neither the Court nor the Defendant 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).

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

contemporaneously.

Date: June 16, 2026

Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge