Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50028 Su m m ar y Cal endar

P A T R I C I A A NN MON A R DE S , P HD P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. PABLO AYU B, M D; LEON ARD O SOTELO D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c t of Texas U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V

- 170

B ef ore W IE N E R , C L E M E N T , an d P R A D O , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Patr i c i a A nn M onar des ( “ M onar des ” ) , pr oc ee di ng pro se , a ppe al s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f he r c o m pl ai nt f

o r l ac k o f s ubj e c t m at t e r j ur i s di c t i o n. F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS M o nar de s f

i l ed a co m pl ai nt a ga i ns t Pab l o Ayub ( “Ayub” ) a nd Le o nar do Sot el o ( “ Sot el o”) , s et t i ng f or t h var i ous al l egat i ons r el at ed t o r ealand per so nal property l ocat ed i n Su n l an d P ark, N ew M exi co. A f t er r evi ew i n g h er al l egati on s,

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e t a d e a d l i n e fo r M o n a r d e s t o s h o w c a u s e w h y h e r c l a i ms shou l d n ot be di sm i ssed f or l ack of sub j ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on . Th e show cause de ad l i ne w as e xt e nde d w he n M o nar de s i nf o r m e d t he c o ur t t hats he w as i n t he pr o c e s s o f

o bt ai ni ng c o uns e l ; t he c o ur t c aut i o ne d t hati t w o ul d no t g r anta ny f ur t he r e xt e ns i o ns . On t he r e s e t de ad l i ne da t e , M o nar de s m o ve d f o r a s e c o nd conti n u an ce. Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed the m ot i on . Su bsequ en tly , t h e di st ri ct
cou rt su a sp o n te revi ew ed M on ardes’ s c l ai m s and f ou n d n o a l l egati on s of
c i t i ze nshi p upon w hi c h i t c oul d pro per l y exe r c i se di ver si t y j uri sdi c t i on under 28 U

. S. C. § 1 33 2( a)

. I t f ur t he r no t e d M o nar de s ’ s fai l ur e t o s at i s f y t he pr e vi o us show cause order. A ccor di n gl y, t h e court di sm i ssed t h e case w i t h ou t prej u di ce f o r l ac k o f

s ubj e c t m at t e r j ur i s di c t i o n. M o nar de s t i m e l y ap pe al e d.

S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ W h e n a d d r e s s i n ga d i s mi s s a lfo r l a c k o f s u b j e c t ma t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , we
r e v ie w a p p lic a tio n o f la w d e n o v o a n d d is p u te d fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r cle a r e r r o r .” Un i t ed S t ate s e x re l

. B ran ch C on sult an t s v. A l lst ate I n s. C o. , 560 F. 3d 371, 376 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “A d istr ict co u rt’s fa ctu a l fin d in g s a re c lea rly e rr o n e o u s o n ly if, af t err evi ew i ng th e r ec or d, t hi s C our t i s f i r m l y c onvi nce d t hat a m i st ake has b ee n m a d e.” I

d. DI S CU S S I ON The di s t r i c t c o ur t b as e d i t s di s m i s s alon M o nar de s ’ s fai l ur e t o al l e ge t he ci t i zensh i p o f a n y o f th e parti es. I n st ead , M on ardes al l eged t h at s h e w as a

“ resi den t of

t h e State of

N ew M exi co” an d that “A yu b .

. . i s a resi den t of E lP aso, T exas an d [ S ot el o] i s a resi den t of M exi co an d E l P aso, T exas. ” T h e di st ri ctcourt f ou n d t h ese al l egati on s of t h e defenda n t s’ resi den cy i n suff i ci en t t o es tab l i sh di ve r s i t y j ur i s di c t i o n.

“ For purpos es of

di ver si t y j u ri sd i cti on, t he dom i c i l e o f t he par t i es , as op p ose d to t h eir resi d e n c e , is t h e k ey . ” Com bee v. S h el lO i lC o. , 615 F. 2d 698,I n her brief, Mon ardes argues that sheu nsucc essfully sought the defen dant s’ a nswers 1 to interrogatories whichwoul d h ave e stablishe d th eir Mexicancitize nship. Monardes furthe r clai ms that sh e w as pr epa redt o p rod uce w itne ss es at a dock et cal l hearin g who w ouldhave tes tif ied to the def

enda nts ’ cit izens hip, but that the case w as di sm iss ed pr ior tothat hear ing. However , th e sh ow cause order, w hich Monardes di d n ot satisfy , cle arlyin dicated thata failure to complywoul d re sult in a di smissal of th e ca se. Monardes was, ther efore , onn otice befo re the scheduled hearin g that h er c ase was subje ct todismissal. To the extentMon ardes presents oth er a ssertion s an d ar gu ments in her brief, th ey 2 do not a ddress whe therth e di strict court h ad subj ect matter jurisdiction

. Th e court th erefo re n ee d n otcon si de r thos e cl aim s inres olvin gthisapp eal. See Grant v. Cuellar , 59F .3d 5 23, 524 (5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) (“Alth ou ghwelib er allyc on stru e b ri ef s of pro se liti g a ntsa nd a pp lyl es s st ringen t st andar ds t o p art ies proc eeding pro se th a nt o partie s r ep re se nte d b yc ou n se l, pro se partie s m u ststill b ri ef th e is su esa n d re a so n ab lyc om plywithth e st a n dards of Ru le2 8 .” (f oo tnot e om itte d) ). 3 7 0 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ); seeal so P res t on v. T enet Heal t h syst em Mem ’lMed. C t r. , 485 F

. 3d 793 , 798 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) ( “A party’s res i den ce i n a st ate al on e does not esta b l i sh do m i ci l e.” ). A n all eg a ti on of resid en cy i s n o t s u ff i ci en t f or d i ve rsit y j uri sdi c t i o n pu r po s e s ; i ns t e ad , a pl ai nt i f f m us t a l l e ge c i t i z e ns hi p t o s at i s f y t he
r e q u ir e m e n ts o f § 1 3 3 2 (a ). Se e Nadl e rv . Am

. Mo t o r s S al e s Cor p. , 764 F. 2d 409, 41 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 85 )

. Bec aus e M o nar de s fai l e d t o a l l e ge o r o t he r w i s e e s t ab l i s h t he ci ti ze n sh i p o f th e d efen d a n ts, th e d i stri ct co u rt’ s d i sm i ssa lf or lack of d i ve rsit y 1 j u ri sdi ct i on w as proper. 2 CO NC L US I ON F o r th e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e d i s tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.