Wayne v. McPhee
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
Date FiledJune 16, 2026
DocketCivil Action No. 2026-1551
JudgeJudge Tanya S. Chutkan
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full 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