SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) filed on June 7, 2017. Subject-matter jurisdiction is premised on the presence of diversity of citizenship between the parties. (Id. at ¶ 2). This requires complete diversity of citizenship, and that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000). If the Court determines "at any time" that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Defendant fails to establish complete diversity of citizenship. An individual is a citizen where he is domiciled, not necessarily where he is a resident. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) ("Citizenship is equivalent to `domicile' for purposes of diversity jurisdiction."). Domicile is the place of an individual's true, fixed, and permanent home and to which he intends to return whenever he is absent therefrom. See Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989) (citations omitted). A domicile is not synonymous with a residence, and it is possible for someone to reside in one place but be domiciled in another. See id. Plaintiff has failed to properly allege the citizenship of the individually-named Defendant, simply stating that Defendant resides in Parker, Colorado. (Doc. 1, ¶ 4). Therefore, the Court cannot determine that diversity of citizenship is present. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to state the presence of federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
Accordingly, it is now
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint on or before