of care. He also reminds the Court that he is banned from the only Texas property he owned, and would thus have no place to reside in Texas. Although on its face, the rule of law regarding the citizenship of a prisoner for diversity purposes appears to support Leblanc’s claim to be a citizen of Louisiana based solely on his assertion that he intends to relocate to Louisiana, Leblanc has not cited nor, after an extensive search, has this Court located caselaw favoring the application he seeks. In the relevant cases, the courts have determined that the prisoner’s citizenship lies either in the state of his citizenship prior to incarceration or in the state where he is currently incarcerated, depending upon his expressed intent. See Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1124 (6th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); Bontkowski 305 F.3d at 763 (citing the
holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that a state has subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce if one of the spouses is domiciled in the state holding that a prisoner may show he has developed the intention to be domiciled in the state in which he is incarcerated when his citizenship prior to incarceration was elsewhere holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires