OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. MARTIN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has an ongoing duty to police its subject matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002).

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging that the District Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and both defendants and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. Neuma, Inc. v. AMP, Inc., 259 F.3d 864, 881 (7th Cir. 2001). As the party seeking to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the jurisdictional requirements have been met. Chase v. Shop'n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997). Anything less can result in a dismissal. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004).

Though the citizenship of Defendants is properly alleged, the Complaint alleges only that Plaintiff Cedric Siler is a "resident" of Illinois. This allegation is insufficient for the purpose of determining citizenship. Citizenship of a natural person is determined by domicile, not by residence. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[R]esidence may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile-that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the long run."); Guar. Nat'l Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a party's "residency" are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332). Plaintiff must allege his domicile.

Next, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff's vehicle "sustained damages" and that Plaintiff "suffered significant and permanent injuries" as a result of the events described in the Complaint, and that his "damages are in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($75,000)." In addition to inconsistency in the dollar amount alleged, Plaintiff does not explain how he calculated the amount of loss.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to FILE, on or before December 6, 2019, a supplemental jurisdictional statement clarifying Plaintiff's citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) and demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 as outlined above.

SO ORDERED.