Hall v. Curran

Decision Date24 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-1354.,09-1354.
Citation599 F.3d 70
PartiesKevin D. HALL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. John CURRAN, Defendant, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

599 F.3d 70

Kevin D. HALL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. John CURRAN, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 09-1354.

United States Court of Appeals
First Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 31, 2009.
Decided: March 24, 2010.


[599 F.3d 71]

Kevin D. Hall on brief pro se.

Before BOUDIN, SELYA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A cause of action may be maintained in federal court only if it involves a question of federal law, or if the controversy is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. This pro se prisoner's appeal raises the question of how citizenship of an incarcerated person is determined for diversity jurisdiction purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). We adopt the prevailing test articulated in Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir.2006), and affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Appellant Kevin D. Hall lived in New Hampshire prior to his incarceration. After he was transferred to Sing Sing penitentiary in New York State, Hall filed suit in federal district court against an attorney for the New Hampshire Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Hall's complaint alleged that this attorney had reneged on a promise in an earlier litigation (initiated when Hall was imprisoned in New Hampshire) to provide Hall with copies of his medical records in exchange for executing the forms that released those records to the attorney.

Hall's complaint alleged only statelaw claims for fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference with beneficial contractual relations, and sought damages of $10 million. The DOC attorney was the sole defendant; he worked and resided in New Hampshire and, for all intents and purposes, was a citizen of that state. No federal question having been alleged, jurisdiction therefore depended on diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

[599 F.3d 72]

After completing his initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and New Hampshire Local Rule 4.3(d)(2), the magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the controversy alleged was not between citizens of different states. Hall timely objected and claimed that he would submit proof of his New York State citizenship. Besides his unsupported statement that he had "agreed to a civil commitment placement" in New...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Bower v. Egyptair Airlines Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 2, 2013
    ...when he or she is physically present in a location and has the intent to remain there for the indefinite future. Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir.2010); see García–Pérez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348, 350 (1st Cir.2004); Rodríguez–Díaz v. Sierra–Martínez, 853 F.2d 1027, 1029 (1st Cir.1......
  • Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 3, 2012
    ...is of no moment. Prisoners presumptively retain their prior citizenship when the gates close behind them. See Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir.2010); Smith v. Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254, 1260 (10th Cir.2006); Sullivan v. Freeman, 944 F.2d 334, 337 (7th Cir.1991). No one challenges that......
  • Pettus-Brown v. Cooper
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 1, 2015
    ...Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 247 (3rd Cir. 2013); see also Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1126-27 (6th Cir. 1973); Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (citing Stifel and other cases); Pierro v. Kugel, 386 F. App'x 308, 309-10 (3rd Cir. 2010) (citing Stifel and Tenth, Seven......
  • Ramirez v. Hosp. EspaÑol Auxilio Mutuo Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • May 3, 2011
    ...is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 71 (1st Cir.2010). A case may only be removed from state court if a federal court would have had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case if brought......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT