James Pierro v. Angela Kugel

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-2266
JAMES FRANK PIERRO,
Appellant
v.
ANGELA KUGEL; GEORGE KUGEL, Husband and Wife
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-01686)
District Judge: Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 2, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: July 6, 2010)
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court dismissed
Appellant James Pierro’s complaint. We will vacate and remand.
I.
Pierro is a federal prisoner incarcerated in Virginia. He was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 120 months by the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. See United States v. Pierro, Cr. 04-714-01 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2005) (Judgment in a
Criminal Case). In April 2009, while incarcerated, Pierro filed a complaint in federal
court alleging that his sister and her husband, Angela and George Kugel, mismanaged his
late mother’s estate. The complaint alleged that Angela resided in New Jersey. The
complaint asserted state law claims and federal diversity jurisdiction. The District Court
dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying a per se rule that
incarceration does not change a prisoner’s domicile. Pierro timely appealed.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a
district court’s dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Frett-Smith v.
Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir. 2008).
Diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, that every plaintiff be diverse
from each defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). “Whether diversity jurisdiction exists is
determined by examining the citizenship of the parties at the time the complaint was
filed.” Midlantic Nat’l Bank v. Hansen, 48 F.3d 693, 696 (3d Cir. 1995).
It is well-settled that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, citizenship means
domicile, not residence. See Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300 (3d Cir. 1972). To
-2-
acquire a domicile, a person must be physically present in a state and intend to remain in
that state. Id. “In determining an individual’s domicile, a court considers several factors,
including declarations, exercise of political rights, payment of personal taxes, house of
residence, . . . place of business . . . location of brokerage and bank accounts, location of
spouse and family, membership in unions and other organizations, and driver’s license
and vehicle registration.” McCann v. George W. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d
281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
This case presents the discrete question of whether, for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, a prisoner’s citizenship may properly be based on his state of incarceration.
The modern position – and that adopted by the majority of courts of appeals to have
addressed this issue – is that the domicile of a prisoner before his imprisonment
presumptively remains his domicile during his imprisonment. That presumption,
however, may be rebutted by showing a bona fide intent to remain in the state of
incarceration on release. See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1126 (6th Cir. 1973); see
also Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254, 1260 (10th Cir. 2006); Singletary v. Cont’l Ill.
Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 9 F.3d 1236, 1238 (7th Cir. 1993); Housand v. Heiman,
594 F.2d 923, 925 n.5 (2d Cir. 1979) (per curiam); Jones v. Hadican, 552 F.2d 249, 251
(8th Cir. 1977). We agree.
In adopting this position, the First Circuit stated, “[i]n order to overcome the
presumption, the prisoner must offer more than conclusory statements and unsupported
-3-
allegations. No single factor is dispositive, and the analysis focuses not simply on the
number of contacts with the purported domicile, but also on their substantive nature.”
Hall v. Curan, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (quotations omitted). Indeed,
a prisoner must introduce more than mere “unsubstantiated declarations” to rebut the
presumption. Stifel, 477 F.2d at 1126. And, as the Eighth Circuit noted, a prisoner must
“show truly exceptional circumstances” to overcome the presumption. Jones, 552 F.2d at
251. In short, the presumption will not be easily rebutted.
Here, Pierro alleged only his and Angela’s residency, not citizenship, and failed to
allege facts demonstrating a bona fide intent to remain in Virginia. However, a court
should ordinarily allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint to properly allege the parties’
citizenship, unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See 28 U.S.C. § 1653; In re
Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). Because the
District Court sua sponte dismissed Pierro’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, we vacate
and remand to permit Pierro to amend his complaint to allege his citizenship and that of
Angela and George and any facts demonstrating his intent to remain in Virginia.
-4-