Troisi v. Saltzman

D. Massachusetts

Troisi v. Saltzman

DecidedDecember 12, 2018

Docket1:18-cv-10962

StatusUnknown

This text of Troisi v. Saltzman (Troisi v. Saltzman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Troisi v. Saltzman, (D. Mass. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) JANICE TROISI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 18-cv-10962-NMG ROBERT SALTZMAN, et al., ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

GORTON, J.

On May 14, 2018, pro se litigant Janice Troisi (“Troisi”) filed a legal malpractice and negligence lawsuit against two criminal defense attorneys who represented her in United States v. Troisi, Crim. No. 13-10266-DPW (D. Mass.). At the time of filing, Troisi was incarcerated in Fort Worth, Texas, and she invoked the Court’s diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“§ 1332”). In a memorandum and order dated July 26, 2018 (Docket # 5), Magistrate Judge Cabell directed Troisi to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court explained that jurisdiction under § 1332 only exists where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the Court determined that it did not appear that the requirement was met in this case. Troisi had provided Massachusetts addresses for both defendants, and she expressed her intention to reside in Massachusetts upon her release. Because Troisi is a prisoner, the Court presumed that she “remains a citizen of the

state where [s]he was domiciled before [her] incarceration, even if [s]he is subsequently incarcerated in a different state.” Hall v. Durran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 2010). In her show cause response [ECF No. 11], Troisi submitted documents verifying her Massachusetts residency, and she did not provide any additional information about the domicile of the defendants. Thus, she has failed to show that diversity of citizenship exists for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332. Accordingly, the Court orders that this action be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to bringing this action in the appropriate

state court. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be terminated as moot. So ordered. /s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge Dated: 12/12/18

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) JANICE TROISI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 18-cv-10962-NMG ROBERT SALTZMAN, et al., ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

GORTON, J.

On May 14, 2018, pro se litigant Janice Troisi (“Troisi”) filed a legal malpractice and negligence lawsuit against two criminal defense attorneys who represented her in United States v. Troisi, Crim. No. 13-10266-DPW (D. Mass.). At the time of filing, Troisi was incarcerated in Fort Worth, Texas, and she invoked the Court’s diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“§ 1332”). In a memorandum and order dated July 26, 2018 (Docket # 5), Magistrate Judge Cabell directed Troisi to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court explained that jurisdiction under § 1332 only exists where there is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the Court determined that it did not appear that the requirement was met in this case. Troisi had provided Massachusetts addresses for both defendants, and she expressed her intention to reside in Massachusetts upon her release. Because Troisi is a prisoner, the Court presumed that she “remains a citizen of the

state where [s]he was domiciled before [her] incarceration, even if [s]he is subsequently incarcerated in a different state.” Hall v. Durran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 2010). In her show cause response [ECF No. 11], Troisi submitted documents verifying her Massachusetts residency, and she did not provide any additional information about the domicile of the defendants. Thus, she has failed to show that diversity of citizenship exists for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332. Accordingly, the Court orders that this action be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to bringing this action in the appropriate

state court. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be terminated as moot. So ordered. /s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton Nathaniel M. Gorton United States District Judge Dated: 12/12/18

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Troisi v. Saltzman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troisi-v-saltzman-mad-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack