Casanova v. Ramos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Daniel Casanova
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-851-PB
N.H. State Prison Corrections Officer
FNU Ramos et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT
NUNEZ’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pro se plaintiff Daniel Casanova (“Casanova”), who is presently incarcerated at the
Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility, brought this civil rights action, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and New Hampshire state law, against two corrections officers and two nurses at
the New Hampshire State Prison for Men (“NHSP”). On February 20, 2024, the court granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to all of Casanova’s federal claims but
denied the motion, without prejudice, with respect to his state law claims against defendant
Corporal Fernando Nunez (“Nunez”) for assault and for battery. 	The court then granted Nunez
leave to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment with respect to jurisdictional issues.
The matter is presently before the court on “Defendant Nunez’s Second Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 112). By his motion, Nunez argues that the court has dismissed
all of the federal claims upon which its original subject matter jurisdiction was based, and that
there is no diversity of citizenship. 	He further argues that the court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because it would not serve the
interests of comity, judicial economy, convenience, or fairness for the court to maintain
jurisdiction over those claims. 	For the reasons that follow, this court finds the defendant’s
arguments persuasive. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommends that Nunez’s second motion
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 7

2
for summary judgment be GRANTED and that the state law claims be dismissed without prejudice
to the plaintiff’s ability to refile them in state court.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an incident that occurred on October 15, 2021, while Casanova was
incarcerated at the NHSP. Casanova alleges that on that date, Nunez, a Corrections Officer (“CO”)
at the prison, pulled Casanova’s feet out from under him and threw him to the ground while
handcuffed, causing him to break his arm and sustain other serious injuries. He also alleges that
in the immediate aftermath of the incident, two NHSP nurses refused to provide him with adequate
medical treatment and a second CO added to his injuries by twisting his arms while removing him
from his cell, despite having knowledge of the plaintiff’s physical condition. On October 25, 2021,
Casanova filed the instant action again Nunez, the two nurses, and the second CO. 	By his
complaint, Casanova asserted claims against all of the defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. He also asserted claims against Nunez for assault
and for battery under New Hampshire state law.
In July 2023, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff’s claims.
On February 20, 2024, the court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment with respect to Casanova’s federal law claims but denying the motion with respect to his
claims for assault and for battery against Nunez. 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, “district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if “the district court has dismissed all
claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 	Id. § 1367(c). 	Accordingly, the summary
judgment ruling raised a question as to whether dismissal of the federal law claims deprived the
court of original jurisdiction over this action or whether there may be diversity jurisdiction. See
Industria Lechera de P.R., Inc. v. Beiró, 989 F.3d 116, 120 (1st Cir. 2021) (“Federal courts ‘have
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 7

3
an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no
party challenges it.’” (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010)). 	It also raised a
question as to whether the court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims in the event no diversity jurisdiction exists. In an order dated February
27, 2024, this court directed the parties to produce evidence regarding the states in which they
were domiciled on the date Casanova filed this lawsuit and provided Nunez with an opportunity
to file a second motion for summary judgment addressing the question of jurisdiction. On March
22, 2024, Nunez filed the instant motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Lack of Original Jurisdiction
“Federal courts have [original] jurisdiction over two general types of cases: cases that
aris[e] under federal law and cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there
is diversity of citizenship among the parties.” Id. (second alteration in original; quotation marks
and citations omitted). Where, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed, “the only possible
basis for [original] subject-matter jurisdiction in this court is diversity of citizenship.” Portes v.
Masferrer, No. 16-cv-393-JL, 2018 WL 3340371, at *2, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15498, at *4
(D.N.H. May 29, 2018), adopted by 2018 WL 3339525, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112522 (D.N.H.
July 6, 2018). Accordingly, this court must address whether diversity jurisdiction exists here.
Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). “For purposes of diversity, a person is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled[,]”
and “[a] person’s domicile is the place where he has his true, fixed home and principal
establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Aponte-
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 7

4
Dávila v. Mun. of Caguas, 828 F.3d 40, 46 (1st Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Once 	challenged, 	the 	party 	invoking 	diversity 	jurisdiction 	must 	prove 	domicile 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). This “requires two
showings: (1) physical presence in a place, and (2) the intent to make that place one’s own.” Id.
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Domicile is determined at the time the suit is filed.” Hall v. Curran, 599 F.3d 70, 72 (1st
Cir. 2010) (per curiam). “In cases involving prisoners, the courts presume that the prisoner remains
a citizen of the state where he was domiciled before his incarceration, even if he is subsequently
incarcerated in a different state.” Id. In this case, the record before the court indicates that both
Casanova and Nunez were domiciled in New Hampshire at the time Casanova filed this lawsuit
on October 25, 2021.
The available evidence suggests that Casanova was a citizen of New Hampshire prior to
his incarceration. See Doc. No. 111 (stating that Casanova was living in Nashua, New Hampshire
prior to his incarceration in 2011); Casanova v. Seusing, No. 12-cv-43-SM, 2012 WL 2013409, at
*1, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71581, at *2 (D.N.H. June 5, 2012) (indicating that Casanova was
arrested and charged in New Hampshire). Additionally, Casanova has presented no evidence to
suggest that he has ties to another state or intends to live elsewhere following his release from
prison. Furthermore, Casanova did not allege diversity jurisdiction in his complaint, did not file a
disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 and does not
dispute Nunez’s argument that both parties were domiciled in New Hampshire at the time he filed
1 Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that “[i]n an action in
which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party . . . must, unless the
court orders otherwise, file a disclosure statement. The statement must name – and identify the
citizenship of – every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party . . . when the
action is filed in or removed to federal court[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2).
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 4 of 7

5
this lawsuit. Therefore, Casanova “is presumed to be a citizen of New Hampshire for purposes of
establishing domicile.” Hall v. Clark, No. 08-cv-465-SM, 2009 WL 1360476, at *2 (D.N.H. May
14, 2009) (party was presumed to be a New Hampshire citizen for purposes of domicile where
record indicated he was a citizen of New Hampshire prior to his incarceration and he expressed no
intent to remain in New York where he was incarcerated following his transfer from New
Hampshire).
The record also establishes that Nunez was a citizen of New Hampshire at all relevant
times. In response to the court’s February 27, 2024 order, Nunez filed a Statement of Domicile in
which he asserted that he was domiciled in New Hampshire at the time Casanova filed this action
on October 25, 2021. Doc. No. 109. He also filed a separate document describing his “status on
October 25, 2021.” Doc. No. 110 ¶ 1. Therein, Nunez indicated that at the time this action began,
he was residing and working in New Hampshire, maintained all of his real and personal property
in New Hampshire, was paying taxes in New Hampshire, and had his car registered in New
Hampshire. Doc. No. 110. All of these factors, which are undisputed, support Nunez’s assertion
that he was a citizen of New Hampshire and therefore domiciled here at all times relevant to the
diversity analysis. See Aponte-Dávila, 828 F.3d at 46 (“factors that are relevant to determining a
party’s domicile” include, among others, the party’s “current residence;” “location of personal and
real property;” “place of employment or business;” “automobile registration;” and “payment of
taxes” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). 	Because the record indicates that both parties
were citizens of New Hampshire, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case.
II. 	Whether the Court Should Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction
Because there is no diversity jurisdiction, Casanova’s state law claims against Nunez are
in this court “solely as a result of the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.” Zell
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 5 of 7

6
v. Ricci, 957 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2020). The First Circuit has held that “when all federal claims
have been dismissed, it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to retain jurisdiction over the
remaining pendent state law claims unless doing so would serve ‘the interests of fairness, judicial
economy, convenience, and comity.’” 	Id. (quoting Wilbur v. Curtis, 872 F.3d 15, 23 (1st Cir.
2017)) (additional quotation marks and citation omitted). 	“[W]hen the federal-law claims have
dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court
should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” 	Borrás-
Borrero v. Corporación del Fondo del Seguro del Estado, 958 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2020) (alteration
in original) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).
This case is still in its early stages. The only discovery that has occurred to date has been
limited to the issue whether Casanova exhausted his administrative remedies before filing this
lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 	See Doc. No. 80.
Additionally, the court’s ruling on the defendants’ July 2023 motion for summary judgment was
directed to the issue of PLRA exhaustion. This court has yet to issue a scheduling order authorizing
discovery related to the merits of Casanova’s state law claims against Nunez or setting any other
deadlines for the resolution of those claims. See id. at 2. Nor have the court and the parties had
an opportunity to address the merits of the state law claim in connection with any motions for
summary judgment. 	Accordingly, the proper course is for the court to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Nunez for assault and for battery, and to dismiss
those claims without prejudice to Casanova’s ability to refile them in New Hampshire state court.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons described herein, the magistrate judge recommends that “Defendant
Nunez’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 112) be GRANTED and that
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 6 of 7

7
Casanova’s state law claims against Nunez be dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff’s ability
to refile those claims in state court. The clerk’s office should then enter judgment and close this
case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days
of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this Report and Recommendation “are subject to
review in the district court” and any issues “not preserved by such objection are precluded on
appeal.” Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir.
2010) (quoting Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir. 1988)).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 1, 2024
cc: 	Daniel Casanova, pro se
Counsel of record
Case 1:21-cv-00851-PB Document 122 Filed 07/01/24 Page 7 of 7