Case: 14-11949   Date Filed: 11/04/2014   Page: 1 of 3


                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]



              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                        ________________________

                               No. 14-11949
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                         ________________________

                    D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00656-WMA



JAMES MCCONICO, JR.,

                                                             Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                    versus

THE COCHRAN FIRM,
A Domestic Prossessional Corporation,
JUSTIN M. TAYLOR,
Attorney,
JAMES W. PARKMAN, III,
Attorney,
WILLIAM CALVIN WHITE, II,
Attorney,
SAMUEL A. CHERRY, JR.,
Director, et al.,


                                                          Defendants-Appellees.
               Case: 14-11949      Date Filed: 11/04/2014     Page: 2 of 3


                             ________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Alabama
                            ________________________

                                  (November 4, 2014)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

       James McConico, Jr., a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the sua sponte

dismissal of his breach-of-contract action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

McConico argues that the district court had jurisdiction based on diversity under

28 U.S.C. § 1332. We affirm the district court.

       We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing a case for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff. Parise v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 

, 1465 (11th Cir. 1998).

District courts have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity if the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 and the case is between citizens of different states.

§ 1332(a). For diversity to exist there must be complete diversity: “every plaintiff

must be diverse from every defendant.” Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 

, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). When invoking federal jurisdiction based on

diversity, a plaintiff must allege facts showing diversity exists by “includ[ing] the

citizenship of each party, so that the court is satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of


                                             2
               Case: 14-11949     Date Filed: 11/04/2014    Page: 3 of 3


the same state as any defendant.” Travaglio v. Am. Expresss Co., 

,

1268 (11th Cir. 2013). Natural persons are citizens of the state where they are

domiciled. McCormick v. Aderholt, 

, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (per

curiam). A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and of the state

where it has its principal place of business. § 1332(c)(1).

      Diversity did not exist here. In his complaint, the plaintiff, McConico,

alleged Alabama citizenship for himself and four of the named individual

defendants. He also alleged that the defendant-corporation, The Cochran Firm,

had its principal place of business in, and is therefore a citizen of, Alabama. Due

to the lack of complete diversity, the district court lacked subject matter

jurisdiction. The district court did not err in dismissing the case.

      AFFIRMED.




                                           3