Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00299/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00299-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

JAMES J. SWAIN PLAINTIFF 

#259133 

V. CASE NO. 4:20-cv-00299 JM 

JON R. SANFORD DEFENDANT 

 

ORDER 

Plaintiff James J. Swain, in custody at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in 

Adrian, Michigan, filed a pro se complaint alleging legal malpractice and fraud against 

attorney Jon R. Sanford; Swain maintains this Court has diversity jurisdiction over his 

claims. (Doc. No. 2 at 2). 

I. Screening 

Federal law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis complaints, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e), and prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or 

employee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Claims that are legally frivolous or malicious; that fail to 

state a claim for relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune from paying 

damages should be dismissed before the defendants are served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A claim is legally frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law 

or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) requires 

only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (overruling Conley v. 

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), and setting new standard for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted), the court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the 

Case 4:20-cv-00299-JM Document 9 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 3
2

‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment]to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” citing 5 C. Wright & 

A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235- 236 (3d ed. 2004). A complaint 

must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, not merely 

conceivable. Twombly at 570. However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed 

liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th 

Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). 

II. Discussion 

 As mentioned above, Swain sued Sanford for legal malpractice and fraud; Swain 

asserts diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction “requires an amount in controversy 

over $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship of the litigants.” E3 Biofuels, LLC v. 

Biothane, LLC, 781 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. 

Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2007)). “Complete diversity of citizenship exists 

where no defendant holds citizenship in the same state where any plaintiff holds 

citizenship.” Id. The controlling factor in determining citizenship is the domicile of an 

individual. Jones v. Hadican, 552 F.2d 249, 250 (8th Cir. 1977). 

 Swain identifies Defendant Sanford as a resident of the State of Arkansas; Swain 

explains that he is “a resident of Michigan as a Prisoner . . . .” (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) There is 

a presumption that “a prisoner does not acquire a new domicile when he is incarcerated in 

a different state; instead, he retains the domicile he had prior to his incarceration.” 

Hadican, 552 F.2d at 250 (internal citations omitted). Mere presence in a state does not 

Case 4:20-cv-00299-JM Document 9 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 3
3

effect a change of domicile. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 250 (5th Cir. 1996). The burden 

of establishing diversity jurisdiction rests on the party invoking it. Hartridge v. AETNA 

Casualty & Surety Co., 415 F.2d 809, 814 (8th Cir. 1969). 

Swain provided no background of his past domicile; he says only he is a resident of 

Michigan “as a prisoner.” Swain also did not plead “facts sufficient to indicate a bona fide 

intention to change his domicile to his place of incarceration.” Hadican, 552 F.2d at 251. 

Because Swain provided insufficient information for the Court to determine his domicile, 

and thus to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists, and because he has not made 

federal claims, his Complaint must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 18 U.S.C. § 1332. 

III. Conclusion 

1. Swain’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

2. Swain’s Motion for Hearing and Motion for Service (Doc. Nos. 5, 6) are 

DENIED as moot. 

 3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma 

pauperis appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2020. 

 ________________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 4:20-cv-00299-JM Document 9 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 3