Federal Diversity Jurisdiction – Citizenship of a Federal Prisoner

Federal Diversity Jurisdiction – Citizenship of a Federal Prisoner

      A recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky has addressed a small but interesting point of diversity jurisdiction, namely the citizenship of a prisoner of the federal court system.  Hardison v. Denison, 2012 WL 6643288 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 20, 2012).

      Hardison, formerly a resident of Kentucky, but now incarcerated in Pennsylvania, sought to bring in federal court an action for legal malpractice against several Kentucky attorneys.  Ultimately, the question would turn upon whether one who is incarcerated is deemed a citizen of the jurisdiction in which the incarceration is taking place.

      The citizenship of an individual is that in the jurisdiction in which he is domiciled, with domicile being that place in which the individual plans to make their home indefinitely or from which they have an absence of intent to make their home elsewhere.  2012 WL 6643288, *2, citing Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) and Deasy v. Louisville & Jefferson County Metro. Sewer Dist., 47 F. App’x 726, 728 (6^th Cir. 2002).  Further, there is a rebuttable presumption that:

A prisoner does not acquire a new domicile when he or she is incarcerated in a different state; instead he or she maintains his or her pre-incarceration domicile.  Id., quoting Purdom v. Gettleman, 2008 WL 695258, *3 (E.D. Ky. March 12, 2008).

      Hardison alleged he had no intent of returning to Kentucky, and identified a variety of other states in which he might, after his period of incarceration ends, move.  However, he was able to offer no definite plans with respect to doing so.  Pennsylvania was not identified as an option for where he might go after release.  In the absence of firm plans as to where he would be going, the court held, inter alia, that he had not rebutted the presumption that his domicile, and therefore citizenship, remains in Kentucky.  Ultimately:

Thus, the fact that Plaintiff now resides in Pennsylvania by virtue of being incarcerated there, has not extinguished Kentucky as his domicile because Plaintiff has no intention to remain in Pennsylvania once his incarceration ends.

      Complete diversity being absent, the suit was dismissed.