Time-of-Filing Domicile Controls Diversity Jurisdiction; Post-Judgment Amendment Requires Vacatur; Appellate Jurisdiction Requires a Notice of Appeal from Reconsideration

1. Introduction

In Powell v. Maldonado (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) (summary order), pro se plaintiff Darnel Powell appealed (i) a judgment of the Eastern District of New York dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and (ii) an order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

The defendants included individual and institutional parties associated with the Westbury Union Free School District and related entities, as well as the New York State Education Department.

The appeal centered on three jurisdictional/threshold issues:

  • Diversity jurisdiction: whether Powell adequately alleged citizenship diverse from all defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (turning on Powell’s domicile when the action commenced).
  • Post-judgment amendment: whether Powell could obtain leave to amend after entry of judgment without first vacating the judgment under Rule 59(e) or 60(b).
  • Appellate jurisdiction: whether the Court of Appeals could review a denial of reconsideration issued after Powell filed his notice of appeal, when he did not file an amended or new notice of appeal.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Second Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not clearly err in finding Powell domiciled in New York when the action commenced, defeating diversity. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief because Powell’s post-judgment materials did not constitute “newly discovered” evidence and, in any event, did not show domicile in a different state at the time of filing. Finally, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s later denial of reconsideration because Powell did not file a new or amended notice of appeal from that order.

The Court also noted (and Powell did not dispute) that the amended complaint’s references to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments failed to allege a non-frivolous federal claim sufficient for federal-question jurisdiction.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos.

Van Buskirk is the opinion’s backbone for both the standard of review and the domicile/time-of-filing framework. The Court quoted it for:

  • reviewing jurisdictional dismissals by accepting pleaded facts as true and drawing reasonable inferences for the plaintiff while reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error; and
  • defining citizenship for diversity as domicile (true fixed home/principal establishment with intent to return), emphasizing that a person has only one domicile at a time, and that the relevant domicile is at the time the complaint was filed.

The Court applied Van Buskirk to conclude that Powell’s filings repeatedly indicated a New York domicile (including a New York mailing address and allegations of “doing business” in New York), and that later materials did not cure the time-of-filing problem.

McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind

The Court invoked McLeod to reiterate the duty to liberally construe pro se submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. Importantly, liberal construction did not relax the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction; it simply informed how the court read what Powell actually alleged and submitted.

Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio

Palazzo supplied the deferential lens for reviewing a district court’s domicile finding: clear error. That standard mattered because Powell’s appeal largely asked the Second Circuit to reweigh factual indicators of domicile; the panel treated domicile as fact-intensive and upheld the district court’s finding.

Wright v. Musanti

Wright reinforced the “commencement of the action” benchmark: diversity is generally determined by the parties’ citizenship at the time the action is commenced. This helped the Court reject Powell’s reliance on later-issued documentation (e.g., a 2025 New Jersey driver’s license) as legally misdirected for a suit filed in 2023.

Windward Bora LLC v. Browne

The Court cited Windward Bora alongside Van Buskirk to support the proposition that dismissal is proper when diversity is not established—confirming that failure to carry the burden on citizenship/domicile is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal rather than merits adjudication.

Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc.

Mandala provided the procedural gatekeeping rule: once judgment is entered, a plaintiff seeking to amend must first obtain vacatur/set-aside under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). The panel used this to dispose of Powell’s post-judgment amendment attempt: without valid Rule 60(b) relief, there is no route to a second amended complaint.

Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P.

Swatch controlled the appellate-jurisdiction point. Because Powell filed his motion for reconsideration and the district court denied it after he had already filed the notice of appeal—and Powell did not file an amended/new notice of appeal from the reconsideration order—the Second Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review that denial.

Dusenbery v. United States and Turner v. Rogers

These authorities were cited in a footnote supporting the district court’s conclusion that Powell’s invocations of constitutional provisions and a treaty did not state a non-frivolous federal claim. Their function in the summary order is less about substantive elaboration and more about validating the proposition that superficial references to federal sources do not automatically create federal-question jurisdiction.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Diversity jurisdiction turned on domicile at filing

The Court treated “citizenship” for § 1332 as synonymous with domicile, and domicile as a mixed bundle of objective indicators (addresses, representations of residence/business activity) and the intention to remain/return. Applying the clear-error standard, it held the district court permissibly relied on Powell’s own pleadings and materials that consistently pointed to New York.

The Court also rejected arguments grounded in Powell’s asserted identity as a “Moorish American” and related documentation, because they did not establish foreign citizenship for diversity purposes (nor negate the New York domicile indicators).

(b) Post-judgment “new evidence” did not justify Rule 60(b) relief

The Court reasoned that Rule 60(b) relief requires a qualifying basis (including truly “newly discovered” evidence). It found no abuse of discretion because:

  • Powell did not identify evidence that was “newly discovered” in the relevant sense—his own domicile history was known to him when the complaint was dismissed; and
  • the documents he produced (a driver’s license and lease from 2025) did not address the legally dispositive time period (domicile in 2023 when the action commenced).

(c) The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the reconsideration denial

Even if reconsideration materials arguably supported an earlier New Jersey residence, the panel held it could not review the denial of reconsideration because the procedural predicate—a notice of appeal from that order—was missing. This reflects the strict separateness of appellate jurisdiction over later orders not encompassed by an earlier notice.

3.3. Impact

Although the decision is a non-precedential summary order, it is practically instructive in several recurring contexts:

  • Jurisdictional pleading discipline: litigants must allege and, when challenged, substantiate domicile at the time of filing; later relocations and later-issued documents are usually irrelevant.
  • Pro se jurisdictional pitfalls: liberal construction does not supply missing jurisdictional facts; self-identification or sovereignty-adjacent assertions will not substitute for domicile and citizenship allegations recognized under § 1332.
  • Post-judgment procedure: once judgment enters, amendment is not a “do-over” unless the judgment is first vacated; Rule 60(b) is not a vehicle to present evidence that could have been timely presented, nor to shift to a different time frame.
  • Appellate practice: a party must file an amended/new notice of appeal to obtain review of a post-notice reconsideration order; otherwise, appellate jurisdiction is absent regardless of the order’s substance.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Subject-matter jurisdiction: a federal court’s power to hear a case. If missing, the case must be dismissed even if the plaintiff might have a valid claim elsewhere.
  • Diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332): allows certain disputes between citizens of different states (or between a citizen and certain foreign citizens) to be heard in federal court, if statutory requirements are met.
  • Domicile: your one true “legal home” for citizenship—generally where you live with the intent to remain or return. You can have many residences but only one domicile at a time.
  • Time-of-filing rule: diversity is measured when the lawsuit starts; moving later generally cannot create jurisdiction that didn’t exist at commencement.
  • Rule 60(b): a limited mechanism for relief from a final judgment for specified reasons (e.g., genuinely newly discovered evidence). It is discretionary and not meant for re-argument or fixing avoidable omissions.
  • Notice of appeal: the filing that gives the appellate court jurisdiction over a specific judgment or order. Later orders typically require their own notice (or an amended notice).

5. Conclusion

Powell v. Maldonado reaffirms three foundational procedural lessons: (1) diversity jurisdiction hinges on domicile at the time the action is commenced and is defeated by a failure to plead/prove non-New York domicile when New York is indicated throughout the pleadings; (2) a plaintiff seeking to amend after judgment must first obtain vacatur under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), and post-judgment documents from a later period do not establish time-of-filing domicile; and (3) appellate review of a denial of reconsideration requires a new or amended notice of appeal. Even as a summary order without precedential effect, the decision underscores how jurisdictional timing and procedural sequencing can determine outcomes before any merits are reached.