Tamayo v. Lynn
1:17-cv-00491
W.D. La.Apr 19, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Alejandro Jaimez Tamayo, a federal inmate at USP Pollock, sued Judge Barbara Lynn and U.S. Attorney John Parker alleging breach of contract and seeking monetary relief.
- Tamayo was convicted in the Northern District of Texas for drug offenses and sentenced to life; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
- Tamayo claimed defendants failed to challenge administrative claims (including immunity) and thus owe him damages; he invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Tamayo is a prisoner seeking redress from government officials.
- Court analyzed subject-matter jurisdiction and found Tamayo is a U.S. citizen domiciled in Texas (naturalization records), and incarceration in Louisiana does not change domicile.
- Because Tamayo and the defendants share Texas citizenship, diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 is lacking; venue for a Bivens claim would also lie in Texas, so amendment to assert constitutional claims would be futile here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | Tamayo: diversity exists because he is a "non-citizen" and defendants are Texas citizens | Defendants: (implicit) parties are not diverse; Tamayo is a U.S. citizen domiciled in Texas | Court: No diversity. Tamayo is a U.S. citizen domiciled in Texas; diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 lacking |
| Proper screening under § 1915A | Tamayo: alleges breach of contract seeking monetary relief | Court/Statute: prisoner suits against government officials subject to § 1915A screening | Court: Complaint subject to dismissal if frivolous, fails to state claim, or seeks money from immune defendant; screening applied |
| Domicile while incarcerated | Tamayo: impliedly claims not domiciled in Texas (asserts non-citizen) | Court: incarceration does not change pre‑incarceration domicile; domicile remains Texas | Court: Tamayo retains Texas domicile despite imprisonment in Louisiana |
| Venue for constitutional (Bivens) claim | Tamayo: sought relief in Western District of Louisiana | Court: venue proper where defendants reside or where events occurred (both in Texas) | Court: Even if amended to allege constitutional claims, venue would be improper here; dismissal recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 1998) (prisoner suits against government officials subject to § 1915A screening)
- Energy Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. City of Alexandria, 739 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2014) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must identify a statutory or constitutional basis)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts lack power absent jurisdiction conferred by Constitution or statute)
- Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077 (5th Cir. 2008) (diversity requires no party on one side share citizenship with any party on the other)
- Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974) (domicile for diversity requires both citizenship and domicile; mere residence is insufficient)
- Pardue v. Pardue, 37 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 1994) (prisoner retains pre‑incarceration domicile for diversity purposes)
- Jones v. Hadican, 552 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1977) (imprisonment does not effect voluntary change of domicile)