Sylvester Jones v. J. Martin Hadican
552 F.2d 249 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a prisoner is presumed to retain their pre-incarceration domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, this presumption is rebuttable if the prisoner can show a bona fide intention to acquire a new domicile in the state of their incarceration under truly exceptional circumstances.
Facts:
- In 1976, Sylvester Jones, a citizen of Missouri, was convicted of several federal drug offenses.
- Jones was sentenced to 35 years in prison and incarcerated at the Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas.
- J. Martin Hadican, also a citizen of Missouri, served as Jones's court-appointed attorney during his criminal trial and appeal.
- Following his conviction, Jones sought to sue Hadican for legal malpractice.
- In his lawsuit, Jones claimed his marriage had 'irrevocably deteriorated' and his new legal residence was in Kansas.
- At the time of his lawsuit, Jones continued to own real estate in Missouri and his real estate business there had not been terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Sylvester Jones filed a civil complaint alleging malpractice against J. Martin Hadican in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Jones asserted that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The District Court, acting on its own initiative (sua sponte), dismissed the complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction.
- Jones, the appellant, appealed the District Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prisoner's incarceration in a new state create an irrebuttable presumption that they retain their pre-incarceration domicile, thereby preventing them from establishing a new domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The traditional, irrebuttable presumption that a prisoner retains their pre-incarceration domicile is rejected in favor of a rebuttable presumption. While incarceration in a new state does not automatically change a prisoner's domicile, the prisoner may overcome the presumption that they retain their former domicile by presenting sufficient evidence of a bona fide intent to remain in the new state. The court adopts the more flexible approach from Stifel v. Hopkins, which allows a prisoner to show truly exceptional circumstances justifying a change in domicile. However, a prisoner must plead and prove more than 'unsubstantiated declarations' to meet this burden. In this case, Jones's allegations that he was serving a long sentence and his marriage had deteriorated were insufficient to raise a substantial question about his intent, especially given his continuing business and property ties to Missouri. Therefore, diversity of citizenship was not established.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Eighth Circuit with the modern trend, moving away from the rigid, traditional rule that a prisoner could never change domicile. It establishes that a prisoner's domicile is a question of fact based on intent, not an irrebuttable legal fiction. While this opens the door for prisoners to establish diversity jurisdiction, the court sets a high evidentiary bar, requiring 'truly exceptional circumstances' and more than mere declarations of intent. This ensures that federal courts are not flooded with cases based on flimsy jurisdictional claims while still allowing for legitimate changes in domicile to be recognized.
