Davis v. Cannick

691 F. App'x 673

2d Cir.

2017

Check Treatment

Docket

Corey DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deveraux CANNICK, Aiello and Cannick, Kevin Keating, Defendants-Appellees.

15-3895-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 2, 2017

673

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Corey Davis, pro se, Adelanto, CA.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.

PRESENT: Jon O. Newman, Jose A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Corey Davis, pro se and incarcerated, appeals from the District Court‘s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party‘s citizenship depends on his domicile.” Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998). “[E]stablishing one‘s domicile in a state generally requires both physical presence there and intent to stay.” Universal Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 139, 141 (2d Cir. 2000); see Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000) (“To effect a change of domicile, two things are indispensable: First, residence in a new domicil[e]; and, second, the intention to remain there.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Plaintiff submitted declarations stating that, prior to his incarceration, he moved to a residence in Florida. Even if the facts in those improperly sworn declarations were true, they were insufficient to establish Davis‘s domicile in Florida, as the District Court concluded.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Davis on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the November 16, 2015 judgment of the District Court.

Image in original document— box divider