MEMORANDUM

To: Attorney Jody Cooper

From: Sarah Butcher, paralegal
Re: Amy Jones, question of Arkansas domicile
Date: February 10, 2019

Facts:
Amy Jones was a Wisconsin for her whole life. Recently, she was sentenced to 10
years in Arkansas state prison for armed robbery. She wants to bring a suit
against her former doctor for medical malpractice for misdiagnosing her
psychological problems. She wants to do this in Arkansas federal court using
diversity jurisdiction.

Issue:
Is Amy Jones’s domicile Arkansas or Wisconsin?

Rules:
Enacted Law:
18 U.S.C. § 205.6 (West 2018) states that to “determine the domicile of a
prisoner, the following factors should be considered:
1. the physical location of the prisoner’s property,
2. the prisoner’s family ties to each of the two possible domiciles,
3. the prisoner’s business ties to each of the two possible domiciles, and
4. the length of the prisoner’s incarceration.”

Case Law:
In Jones v. Hadican, 552 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1977) the court found that the
prisoner’s domicile had not changed because:
1. he owned real estate in his pre-incarceration domicile, and
2. he did not dissolve his business interests there.

This held despite the prisoner having no strong family ties in that state.

In Smith v. Levander, 939 F. Supp. 100 (W.D. Pa. 1991) the court found that the
prisoner’s domicile was in the state of his incarceration (Illinois), not his home
state (California) because:
1. he cut all ties in California through his crime making him unpopular,
2. he conducted all business transactions in Illinois, and
3. he had no family, business, or social reason to return to California.

Application:
For us to successfully prove that Jones can use diversity jurisdiction, the statute
requires that we show Jones’s domicile is Arkansas, not Wisconsin. 18 U.S.C. §
205.6 (West 2018) outlines what factors should be considered when determining
a prisoner’s domicile. Case law shows that when more factors lean towards
connection to an original domicile (home state), then the prisoner’s domicile has
not changed, even if there are some factors say the opposite.

Applying these factors to Amy Jones’s case, results in the following:

• The physical location of the prisoner’s property – Here, Jones’s
property is entirely in Wisconsin. A home that is entirely in her name, and
all of the belongings therein.
• The prisoner’s family ties to each of the two possible domiciles –
Here, Jones’s children moved to Florida to live with her mother. Jones’s
strongest family ties are neither in Wisconsin nor Arkansas.
• The prisoner’s business ties to each of the two possible
domiciles – Jones has no business ties or assets in Wisconsin.
• The length of the prisoner’s incarceration – Here, Jones will be
serving ten years in Arkansas state prison, but has spent her entire life
living in Wisconsin prior to her prison sentence.

Conclusion:
Because Jones’s home and property are currently in Wisconsin, and assuming
she has not attempted to sell her home or move belongings, she has more ties to
Wisconsin than to Arkansas. It is unlikely that the court will find that her
domicile is Arkansas.