UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02441 (UNA)

UNKNOWN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), 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, dismisses this case without

prejudice.

Plaintiff, who resides in the District of Columbia, sues two unnamed male “Co Asian”

Defendants––one is located somewhere in Virginia, and other somewhere in Maryland. See

Compl. at 1–2. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s failure to provide full names and addresses for the

Defendants contravenes D.C. Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1). The allegations fare no better. Plaintiff

alleges only that Defendants trespassed at his property on July 28, 2025, and that one Defendant

drove a gray Jeep Patriot, and that the other Defendant drove a black Dodge Ram, and he provides

license plate numbers for those vehicles. See 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,

, 239–40 (D.D.C. 1987). Federal 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

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

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA,

, 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,

(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

and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is

available only when a “federal question” is presented,

§ 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. First, he has failed to state a

federal question. See

. 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,

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[F]ederal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and

distinctly.” (quoting Bilal v. Kaplan,

(8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam))).

Second, Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See

.

Although it appears that the parties might be of diverse citizenship, it is unclear. It is a “well-

2 established rule” that, for an action to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be

“assessed at the time the action is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc.,

(1991). Indeed, “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,

(D.D.C. 2004) (citation omitted). Plaintiff ostensibly alleges

that Defendants reside in New Jersey and Virginia, respectively, see Compl. at 2, but he fails to

provide their state citizenships, see id. at 3 (left blank). And “an allegation of residence alone is

insufficient to establish the citizenship necessary for diversity jurisdiction.” Novak v. Capital

Mgmt. & Dev. Corp.,

(D.C. Cir. 2006) (emphasis deleted) (quoting Naartex

Consulting Corp. v. Watt,

, 792 n.20 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Moreover, Plaintiff has not

sought 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: November 13, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge

3