UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESUS A. WAYNE, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02574 (UNA) ) ) AFRICAN MALE ) District of Columbia Government Employee, ) ) 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

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, who resides in the District of Columbia, see Compl. at 1, sues an unnamed

individual, referred to only as “District of Columbia Government Employee” and “African Male,”

who also resides somewhere in the District, see id. at 1–2. The allegations themselves are spare;

Plaintiff alleges only that, on August 6, 2025, Defendant trespassed at his property, and he identifies Defendant’s vehicle by make, model, and license plate number. See id. at 4. Plaintiff

does not plead for any relief, stating “no relief, no lawsuit.” Id.

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 also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. See

.

It is a “well-established rule” that the diverse citizenship requirement be “assessed at the time the

suit is filed.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc.,

(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,

(D.D.C. 2004), 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) (quoting Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt,

, 792 n.20 (D.C. Cir.

1983)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the residences of the Defendant, let alone

their domicile or citizenship.

Assuming that Defendant is a citizen of the District of Columbia, where he appears to

currently reside, Plaintiff has still failed to establish diversity jurisdiction, because both he and

Defendant are ostensibly citizens of the District, thus defeating complete diversity. See Bush v.

Butler,

(D.D.C. 2007) (“For jurisdiction to exist under

,

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.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 13, 2025 United States District Judge