Wayne v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2447
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02447 (CJN)

UNKNOWN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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

Wayne’s IFP Application and, for the reasons that follow, dismisses his suit without prejudice.

Wayne, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues two unnamed Defendants, a “Mix

African Male (Kid),” and a “Mix African Male,” both of whom reside somewhere in the District.

See Compl. at 1–2. Wayne alleges that the Defendants trespassed at his property on July 28, 2025,

while driving a gray Ford F-150. Wayne does not provide full names and addresses for the

Defendants, contravening D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), and he does not demand any relief from

the Court. See Compl. at 4.

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). Rule 8(a) 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). Rule 8 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

1 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 Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify

Wayne’s claims or entitlement to relief, if any.

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

federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He 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 provided 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.”)

(citation omitted). Second, Wayne has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332. It is a “well-established rule that diversity of citizenship is assessed at the time the suit 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). Wayne has not alleged that the Defendants live outside the District of Columbia,

let alone alleged that the amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $75,000.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice. A separate

Order will issue contemporaneously.

DATE: October 17, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge