NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0460n.06 No. 09-3240 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
B ET HA NY F ARME R, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. ROGER FI SHER; S AM ROBERTSON; KAREN CHRI STI AN; DEB RA ROTHSTEI N, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States District C o urt for the Southern Di str ic t of

Oh io

Be fore : BO GGS, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit J udg es PER C URI AM. Be thany Fa rmer appea ls the order of the district court de ny ing he r motion to vacate i ts ear lier j udg ment dismiss ing w ith prejudice F arme r’s c omplaint, which soug ht punitive and compe nsatory

damag es fr om the appellee s for va rious torts a ll e g e d ly

c o mmitted duringFa

rmer’ s childhood. Fa

rmer’ s complaint alleg ed that, during the course of a bitter c ustody dispute betwee n her pa rents in the State of O hio’s court sy stem in 1995 and ea rlier, the de fenda

nts–appellee s br e a c he d vari ou s pro fe ssi on a l duti e s owe d to Farm e r b y vir tue of the ir te sti mony

and argume nts to the Ohio cour

ts, which Fa

rmer c hara cter ized as desig ned to ensure that she would be placed in the sole cus t o d y

of her alleg edly abusive a

nd neg lectful fa

ther. Ac cordingto the complaint, Roge r Fisher was a cl i n i cal psy cholog ist with whom Farmer had a doc tor–patient re lationship; S am Robertson and Kar en Christian w ere psy chiatrists with w hom F arme r had d o ct o r– patientNo. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

- 2 - relationships; and De bra Rothstein was a n attorney

with whom Far

mer ha d an attorne y

–client relationship. Thoug h the re cord in thi s case is somewhat unclea r as to the disposition of the custody action in question, it i s evident that at some point Fa rmer le ft the United States in the compa ny of her mother and r emained a

broad at least up until the time she filed suit ag ainst the defe ndants, a pe riod of several y ear s. Her br ief on a ppeal discloses that “[f] rom the ag e of e ight to the pr esent, [Far mer] has re sided in Europe a s a re sult of her m o t her’ s decision to remove her to e scape claimed se x ual abuse at the hands of [her] biolog ical fathe r.” I n a motion see king appointed counsel in the district court be low, Fa

rmer a lleg ed that, “[d]esperate to avoid returnin g t o t h e p o s session of a man she fea red and hated, complainant, along with her mother, w as for ced to take drastic a ction by moving out of the country .” F arme r appe ars to have rema ined in Europe inde finitely ; t h o ug h in her complaint she alleg es that she “ is an eig hteen ( 18) y ear old female ci t i z en of the United States of Americ a,” the complaint—and the r est of the r ecor d—contains no re prese ntation that she is a citizen of any particula r state, a nd indeed the c omp l ai n t appears to identify her r esidenc e as “ various Europea n locations.” Acting pro se, F arme r filed he r complaint in the district court on Marc h 13, 2006, alleg ing that eac h of the de fenda

nts–appellee s were citizens of Ohio an d t hat “[t] his court has jurisdiction over this ac tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332, as there is complete diversity of citizenship between the pa rt ie s and the dama g e s e xce e d $ 75 ,0 00 e xclu siv e of c os ts a nd int e re st. ” Th e de fe ndant s ti me ly
answe red.No. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

- 3 - Ov e r t he ne xt se ve ra l mo nth s, ho we ve r, F arm e r m iss e d sever al sche du le d d e po sit ion s,
c on fe re nc e s, and

de a dli ne s r e le va

nt to he r laws uit

. She fa ile d to a tte nd he r o wn de po sit ion

on July 21 , Se pte mbe r 1 , a

nd Se pte mbe r 1 4, 20 06 , no r did sh e a tte nd a pr e tr ia l sc he du lin g c on fe re nc e on July 27, 2006 or a te lephone status conf ere n ce on September 14, 2006. On Septe mber 15, 2006, the de fe nd ants fi le d a

mot ion to d ism iss Farm e r’ s c omp la int fo r l a c k o f p ro se c uti on

and fa ilure to appea r; Fa rmer f iled no response to that motion, and on May 17, 2007 the mag istrate re commended that it be g rante d. Fa

rmer a g ain filed n o o b

j ec t i o ns to the mag istrate’s r ecommendation, and the district court adopte d it and dismiss ed the c omplaint with prejudice on August 2, 2007. Nea rly a full y ear

later, on July

29, 2008, Fa

rmer f iled a motion to vacate the district court’s jud g me nt, c iti ngOh io C ivi l Ru le 60 (B ). I n h e r m oti on , F arm e r a rgue d th a t, d

ue to he r l oc a tio n in Europe, she had a diffic ult tim e g etting timely notice of c ourt business and had dif ficulties finding counsel. She fur

ther c laimed to have e ventually reta ined an attorney

in March 2007, but that the attorney had misled her into believingthat he wa s qualified to appe ar on her behalf when he in fact was not, an d t h at u l timately his lack of dilig ence resulted in her failure to file any

response to the defe ndants’ motion to dism iss. The district court denie d Fa rmer’ s motion to vacate on J anuar y 30, 2009, and this timely

appea l followed. On appe al, Fa

rmer a rg ues t hat t he dis trict court e rre d in construing her motion to vacate as havin g be e n ma de e xclu siv e ly purs ua nt to F e de ra l Rul e of Civ il Pr oc e dure 60 (b )( 1) , wh ic h p e rm its
re lie f f ro m ju dg me nt o n th e g ro un ds of “ e xcu sa ble ne g le c t,” and c on te nd s that he r mot ion wa s, in fac t, also made pursua

nt to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)( 6), which permits such re lief for “any other re ason that justifies relief .” Ultimately , she ar g ues that her g eog raphic distance f

rom theNo. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

- 4 - court proc eeding s, the failing s of her alleg edly faithless attorne y , and the f act that she has bee n diag nosed with Asper g er’ s Sy ndrome justify

vacat u r o f t he district cour t’s dismiss al of he r compla in t. We w il l n o t r e a c h th e me r it s o f th e s e ar g u me n ts , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e th e d is tr ict court appar ently

lacke d jurisdiction to decide this case

. The pre sence or abse nce of jurisdiction to hear a case is the “f irst and fundamental question prese nted by

ever y case brou gh t t o t h e fede ral c ourts.” Caudill v. N. Am. Me dia Corp. , 200 F.3d 914, 916 (6th Cir. 2000) (interna l citation and quotation marks omitted ). Acc ording ly , “fe dera l
c ourt s h a ve a

du ty to c on sid e r t

he ir su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n in re g ard to e ve ry c a se and may ra ise the issue su a s

po nte .” Answers in G enesis of Ky ., Inc. v . Creation Ministr ies Intern., Ltd. , 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus eve n in case s where the issue of jurisdicti o n was not raised below—such a s this one—we must evaluate whethe r a f eder al cour

t is empowere d to decide the questions raised by

the par ties. See M

itchell v. Maure r , 29 3 U.S . 2 37 , 2 44 (1 93 4) (“ An a pp e llate fe de ra l c ourt

mus t satis fy

its e lf no t on ly of its ow n jur isd ic tio n, bu t als o tha t of the low e r c ourt s in
a ca use under revie w.”)

. That eva luation is shaped by the fa ct that “[f]edera l courts ar e cour ts of limit ed jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constit ution and statute . . . .” Kokkone n v. Guardian Life I ns. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As a result, “[i] t is to be pre sumed that a c ause lies
ou ts ide this lim ite d ju

ri sd ic tio n, and

the burd e n o f e sta

bli sh ingthe c on tr ary

re sts up on

the pa rt y
asser ting jurisdiction.” Ibid. (interna l citations omit ted). F arm e r h a s f

a ile d to me e t th at bu rden . M os t pr omi ne ntl y , h e r c omp la int do e s n ot c omp ly with the prima fa cie r equire m en t that a plaintiff se eking diversity jurisdiction set forth the fa ctualNo. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

- 5 - basis on which that jurisdiction is predic ated. Fe dera l Rule of Civil P roce dure 8( a) ma ndates that “[a] pleading that states a cla im for relief must c ontain . . . a short and pla in statement of the g rounds for the c ourt’s jurisdiction, unless the court alre ady has jurisdiction and the c laim needs no ne w jurisdictional support . . . .” I n her co m p laint, Far mer avers mer ely

that she is a “c itiz en of the United States of Amer ica,” that the four na med def endants a re e ach c itiz ens of Ohio, a nd that fede ral jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is t here fore proper “as the re is complete diversity of citizenship between the pa rties and the da

mag es excee d $75,000 exclusive of costs and intere st.” Ye t th e langua g e of

28 U. S.C. § 1 33 2( a )( 1) a uth or ize s a

fe de ra l cour

t to take div e rs ity jurisdiction over a c ivil action only if the ac tion i s b et we en “citizens of diffe rent States.” F arme r do e s n o t a ll e g e in h e r c o mp la in t th a t s h e is a c it iz e n o f an y s tate , an d th u s f a il s to o v e r come the pr e su mpt ion

a g a ins t f e de ra l su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n b y ple a din g an a de qu a te ba sis fo r d ive rs ity jurisdiction. We r e c og nize , o f co ur se , tha t “th e F e de ra l Rule s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure ‘d o n ot e xten d o r l imi t fede ral ju r is d ic ti o n , b u t t

h e y im p le me n t t h e e xe r c is e o f

e xis ti n g ju

r is d ic ti o n , w h ic h h a s b e en confe rre d by

statute.’” Post v. Bradshaw , 4 2 2 F. 3 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 3

– 2 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Edwards v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &Co. , 183 F.2d 165, 168 ( 5th Cir. 1950)). B ut our dec ision is no m ere
e xalt a tio n o f f

or m ov e r su bs tanc e : it i s w e ll- se ttl e d th at su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 1332(a) (1) r equi re s that the par ties be bo th c iti zen s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s and domiciliaries of individual states. Se e Ne wm an -G re e n, In c . v . A lfo nz o- Larra in , 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989) ( “In order to be a c itiz en of a

State within the meaning of the diver sity statute, a natural person must both be

a c iti zen of the Un ite d St a te s and be do mic ile d with in t he State .” ); se e als o V

on Du ns e r v . A ro no

ff ,No. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

- 6 - 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 ( 6th Cir. 1990) (“State c itiz enship for the purpose of the diversity

require ment is equated w ith domicile.”). “D omicile,” in turn, is, of course , a concept widely used i n both fede ral and state cour ts for jurisdiction and conf lict-of-la ws purposes, a

nd its meaning i s gener ally uncontrove rted.
“ Do mic ile ” i s n o tn e c e s s ar i l y s y n o n y m o u s w i t h “ r e s i d e n c e , ” an d o n e c anr e s i d e in one plac e but be domiciled in another

. For adults, domicile is established by phy sical prese nce in a

place in connec tion with a cer tain state of mind conc erningone’s intent to r e ma in t

he re . O n a c qu ir e s a

“domic ile of

or ig in” at bi rt

h, and that do mic ile continues until a new one (a “domicile of choice”) is acquir ed. Since most minors are le g a lly

inc a pa ble of fo rm ingthe requ isi te int e nt t o e sta bli sha do mic ile , th e ir do mic ile is d e te rm ine d b y that of the ir pa re nts
. Mi ss. Ba nd of C ho c tawIn dia ns v . H

oly fie ld , 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (c itations omi tted). Diversity for the pur

po s e o f s ubject matter

jurisdiction is determined as of the time of the filing of a lawsuit. Curry v. U.S. Bulk Transp., Inc

. , 462 F.3d 536, 540 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Fa rmer’ s complaint and o t h er rec ord docume nts indicate that she ha d lived in Europe f or at lea st ten y ear s be fo re fi lin g he r c omp la int . B e c a us e fo r m os t of

tha t ti me sh e wa s a

min or and thu s “ le g a lly inc a pa ble of fo rm ingthe re qu isi te int e nt t o est a bli sha do mic ile ,” he r d omi c ile up un til he r e ig hte e nth birthday was that of he r custodial par ent. See Toledo Traction Co. v. Cameron , 137 F. 48, 5 6

– 57 (6th Cir. 1905) (child of di vorce d pare nts took his mother’s domi cile because she was the custodial pare nt). Nothing in the r ecor d indicates whic h of her pare nts ha d leg al custody of F arme r, but there is likewise no materia l in the rec ord indicating that she wa s elig ible to seek fe dera l jurisdiction over he r c la ims a t th e tim e sh e fi le d he r c omp la int

. F arm e r’ s mot he r e vid e ntl y

re ma ine d in

Euro pe wi th Fa rmer a fter the y

left the United St at es , l i k ely establishing a

domicile abroa d that would have likewise applied to Fa

rmer he rself unde r Ho ly

fie ld . The only

aff irmative evide nce in the r ecor d ofNo. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

Warren County , Ohio adjoins Hamilton County

. 1 - 7 - the domiciliary

status of either of

Fa rmer’ s pare nts prior to Fa rmer’ s depar

ture include s (1) the ba

re fac t that their custody

litigation t ook place in the Hamilt on County , Ohio J uvenile Court and ( 2) that Fa rmer’ s complaint aver s that she suffe red ong oing a buse as the r es u l t o f t h e def endants’ a ctions

“ e xten din g to y e ars a ft e r [h e r] d e pa rt ur e fr om h e r h ome in W arr e n Co un ty .” Thus a ll ava ila ble 1

e vid e nc e ind ic a te s that, e ve n if F arm e r h a d s ome ho w r e ta ine d h e r p re vio us state c iti zen sh ip w hil e liv ingin E ur op e , s he wo uld have be e n a

c iti zen of Oh io a nd the re fo re un a

ble to s ue the de fe nd a nts in diversity . I n either scena rio—domiciled abroa d or domiciled in Ohio—Fa rmer w ould have ha d to e sta bli sha do mic ile in a

state oth e r t

ha n O hio at so me point

in t he int e rv a l a ft e r h e r e ig hte e nth birthday and bef ore the fil i n g o f her c omplaint in order to succ essfully invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Be cause there is no evidence even hinting that this occurr ed, or that Far mer wa s otherwise a

citizen of any state, her failure to comply

with Rule 8(a) r equi re s d ismiss al of he r complaint. See V on Dunser , 915 F. 2 d at 1 0 7 5 (“ Although, a s a g ener al rule, f eder al cour

ts will acce pt at fac e value a complaint’s fa ctual alleg ations reg ardingthe exist ence of jurisdiction and not require production of speci f ic e v id e n c e u n le s s ju

r is d ic ti o nis c h a ll e n g e d , V o nD u n s e r ’ s c o mp la in t d o e s n o t, b y itse lf,
ne c e ssa ri ly a lle g e su ff

ic ie nt f a c ts t o e sta

bli shfe de ra l juri sd ic tio n. . . . [T ]he c omp la int fa ils to establish diversity o f s t at e ci t izenship, si nce it does not spec ify that Von Dunser

is a citizen of a particula r state. In fac t, the statement that he r esides in Switz erla nd seems to sug g est that he is not a citizen of any

state.”)

.No. 09-3240

Farmer v . Fisher

- 8 - “ With ou t juri sd ic tio n th e c ourt c ann ot p ro c e e d at all in an y c a us e . Jur isd ic tio n is po we r t o decla re the law, and w hen i t ce ases to exist, t he only function re maining to the c ourt is that of announcingthe fa ct and dismissing the c ause.” E x p a r t e Mc Car dle , 7 4 U.S . (7 Wall.) 506, 514 (1869). Ac cording ly , we REMAND this case t o t h e d istrict court with instructions that it be dismiss ed for

lack of jurisdiction.