The opinion
25-259-cv
Powell v. Maldonado
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 2nd day of April, two thousand twenty-six.
PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
STEVEN J. MENASHI,
Circuit Judges.
------------------------------------------------------------------
DARNEL POWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 25-259-cv
LISA MALDONADO, ANN
ALEXANDER, WESTBURY
TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION, NEW
YORK STATE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, WESTBURY
UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
WESTBURY UNION FREE SCHOOL
1
FREE BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendants-Appellees. *
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR APPELLANT: DARNEL POWELL, pro se,
Hackensack, NJ
FOR APPELLEES LISA Adam I. Kleinberg, Guercio &
MALDONADO, ANN Guercio, LLP, Farmingdale, NY
ALEXANDER, WESTBURY
UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
WESTBURY UNION FREE
SCHOOL FREE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES:
FOR APPELLEE NEW YORK Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor
STATE EDUCATION General, Matthew W. Grieco,
DEPARTMENT: Senior Assistant Solicitor General
of Counsel, Katie Kroft, Law
Student Intern, for Letitia James,
Attorney General for the State of
New York, New York, NY
FOR APPELLEE WESTBURY Robert T. Reilly, Christopher
TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION: Lewis, Law Office of Robert T.
Reilly, New York, NY
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Rachel P. Kovner, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
*
The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
2
Plaintiff-Appellant Darnel Powell, representing himself, appeals from the
January 3, 2025 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Kovner, J.) dismissing his amended complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and from the January 30, 2025 order denying his
motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the
record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our
decision to affirm.
“When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de
novo, accepting all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos.,
935 F.3d 49, 52–53 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). We also “liberally
construe” submissions “by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the
strongest arguments they suggest.” McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d
154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
3
Powell first argues that the District Court erred when it concluded that he
failed to plead diversity of citizenship as required to assert federal jurisdiction. 1
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We disagree. ‘‘An individual’s citizenship, within the
meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his domicile[—]in other
words, the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal
establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of
returning.’’ Van Buskirk, 935 F.3d at 53 (cleaned up). We have explained that “[a]
person has only one domicile at any given moment, though it may change,” and
that “[f]or purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the relevant domicile is the parties’
domicile at the time the complaint was filed.” Id. We review a district court’s
factual finding of domicile for clear error. See Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232
F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000).
Powell bore the burden of demonstrating that he was domiciled in a State
other than New York at the time he filed his original complaint. See Van Buskirk,
935 F.3d at 53, 56 n.3; Wright v. Musanti, 887 F.3d 577, 584 (2d Cir. 2018)
1
The District Court correctly concluded and Powell does not dispute that the references
in the amended complaint to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787, the Fifth
Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment failed to allege a non-frivolous federal claim,
the other basis for federal jurisdiction. See App’x 24; Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S.
161, 167 (2002); Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441 (2011).
4
(explaining that, in general, “whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists is
determined by examining the citizenship of the parties at the time the action is
commenced” (cleaned up)). As the District Court determined, Powell failed to
carry his burden. Both his original and amended complaints “claim[ Powell]
[wa]s ‘doing business’ in New York and list[ed his] mailing address in New
York.” App’x 26; see D. Ct. Dkt. No. 1 at 27. They thus indicate that Powell was
domiciled in New York. And neither Powell’s allegation that he identified as a
“Moorish American” born in the “Northwest Amexem currently known as the
Americas” nor Powell’s Allodial American National Identification Card
documenting his mailing address in New York establish that he was a citizen of a
foreign state who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United
States. Spec. App’x 76. The Statement of Claim Upon Relief Powell filed was
“similarly unavailing.” Van Buskirk, 935 F.3d at 54. Although the document
cursorily asserts that Powell resided in West Virginia, it repeats his New York
mailing address and never specifies that he was domiciled in West Virginia at the
time the original complaint was filed and the action commenced.
On this record, we conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in
finding that Powell was domiciled in New York when the action commenced.
5
The court therefore properly dismissed Powell’s amended complaint. See id.;
Windward Bora LLC v. Browne, 110 F.4th 120, 129 (2d Cir. 2024).
Pointing to evidence produced post-judgment that he was “domiciled in
New Jersey months before [his original] complaint was filed,” Appellant’s Br. 7,
Powell also challenges the District Court’s denial of his request for leave to
amend the complaint. But before Powell can file a second amended complaint,
he must “first have the judgment vacated or set aside pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) or 60(b).” Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., 88 F.4th 353, 358 n.3 (2d Cir. 2023)
(quotation marks omitted). The District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Powell’s motion for post-judgment relief under Rule 60(b). Powell
failed to identify any evidence that was “newly discovered” or any other basis
that would justify relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Surely Powell knew at the time of
the original dismissal of his complaint where he lived in 2023.
Moreover, Powell’s proposed evidence suffers from another crucial
deficiency. In support of the motion, Powell submitted a New Jersey driver’s
license issued in January 2025 and a residential lease for property in New Jersey
for the period from January 2025 to December 2025. Those documents are
evidence of where Powell lived in 2025, but neither is evidence that Powell
6
resided, let alone was domiciled, in New Jersey when the original complaint was
filed in 2023. See Van Buskirk, 935 F.3d at 54. The District Court thus acted well
within its discretion in denying Powell’s Rule 60(b) motion.
Powell then moved for reconsideration, including with his motion
statements from himself and Alberto Almonte Jr. that Powell “reside[d]” in New
Jersey in 2022. However, Powell filed the motion for reconsideration, and the
District Court denied it, after he had already filed his notice of appeal that
opened the present case in this Court. Powell did not subsequently amend his
notice or file a new notice of appeal from the denial of reconsideration. We
therefore lack jurisdiction over the denial of the motion for reconsideration. See
Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73, 93 (2d Cir. 2014).
We have considered Powell’s remaining arguments and conclude that they
are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court
is AFFIRMED. Powell’s motions to file a reply brief and for summary judgment
are DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
7