28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions, not state criminal cases.

Flores v. State of Nevada · filed 2020-08-11

However, the Petition’s reliance on these statutes is misplaced because they only apply to civil matters, not criminal. For example, Flores cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (emphasis added).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; it does not authorize removal of state criminal prosecutions.

Aiwohi v. State of Hawaii · filed 2020-11-17

Section 1331 applies to civil actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over civil actions and does not provide a basis to remove a state criminal prosecution.

Anakalea v. State of Hawaii · filed 2021-01-26

Section 1331 applies to civil actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only over civil actions.

Due v. USA · filed 2022-10-18

The Court’s federal question jurisdiction extends only to “civil actions.”

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law and does not support removal of a state criminal case.

Marsee v. Serpik · filed 2023-07-13

Neither does 28 U.S.C. § 1331 support his removal here. See id. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”) (emphasis added).

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for civil actions, not criminal actions.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Guo · filed 2024-04-05

The two bases for removal that are identified in the Notice of Removal— federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332—supply subject matter jurisdiction for civil actions, not criminal actions like the one Mr. Guo attempts to remove here.

Section 1331 applies to civil actions and does not authorize a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a state criminal prosecution.

Yang v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2024-10-15

Yang invokes 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446 in support of her petition, but those statutes pertain only to civil actions and Yang is attempting to remove a criminal matter.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, so it cannot provide a basis to remove a state criminal prosecution.

Stone v. Mashburn · filed 2025-01-02

But federal question jurisdiction cannot be the basis for removal of a state criminal case, ... because 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only permits jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 applies to civil actions, not criminal cases.

In Re: Burnside · filed 2025-01-15

Additionally, the federal question statute applies to civil (not criminal) cases.

Section 1331 applies to civil actions, not criminal cases.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Burnside · filed 2025-02-24

Additionally, the federal question statute applies to civil (not criminal) cases.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions, so it does not provide jurisdiction over a state criminal prosecution.

United States of America Republic v. Indiana State of · filed 2025-07-17

Federal question jurisdiction provides federal courts with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (emphasis added). Montague Bey seeks to remove a criminal case, so this form of civil jurisdiction is inapplicable.

Section 1331 applies only to civil actions and does not provide jurisdiction over a removed state criminal prosecution.

State of Florida v. Hunter · filed 2025-08-28

The plain language of § 1331 clearly limits its applicability to civil actions.

Section 1331's federal-question jurisdiction applies only to civil proceedings and cannot support removal of a state criminal prosecution.

Leggett · filed 2025-10-28

Federal question jurisdiction provides grounds for removal only for civil proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions, not criminal cases.

Robert Joseph Lewis Price v. Comonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2025-12-08

Additionally, the federal question statute applies to civil (not criminal) cases.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over federal-question civil actions but does not provide jurisdiction over a removed state criminal case.

Doucette · filed 2026-02-19

Here, although Doucette correctly identified § 1455 as the statute that provides the procedure for removing a state criminal case to federal court, the only other statute he identifies, § 1331, is inapplicable. Under Section 1331, “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (emphasis added).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a state court custody decision based on state law.

Elkins v. Washington · filed 2022-03-10

As to the existence of federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff is contesting a state court custody decision that was based on a state statute. This does not constitute a case that involves the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts original jurisdiction over an ongoing state child custody dispute that does not arise under federal law.

Jimenez v. Wizel · filed 2016-02-17

The child custody dispute is not a matter arising under the original jurisdiction of the federal courts because it is not an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 generally does not give federal courts jurisdiction to resolve child custody disputes, even when a party alleges a federal constitutional violation.

Quinn v. Kibodeaux · filed 2020-07-29

This Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction and as such, can only hear cases and controversies that involve a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or satisfy federal diversity jurisdiction requirements (28 U.S.C. § 1332). ... Family law matters are state law matters and only in extremely rarely circumstances would a federal court have jurisdiction. ... In other words, even if the allegations Quinn levies against Judge Kibodeaux were true—and the Court is not saying they are—he still would not be able to bring suit in federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a child custody dispute merely because a party describes it as a civil rights case.

Roe v. Jenkins · filed 2021-03-17

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 are not operative here. ... Despite Plaintiff’s argument that this matter is a civil rights one, it is a child custody dispute that must be, and has been, resolved in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to intervene in matters concerning child custody or visitation.

Garrison v. Case, Esq. · filed 2021-12-20

The Court first considers whether the Complaint makes plausible the existence of federal question jurisdiction. The Complaint allegations focus exclusively on the custody dispute in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland. ECF No. 1. Family law matters are traditionally reserved to state or local courts. See Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979). Accordingly, federal courts do not maintain any power to intervene with regard to matters concerning child custody or visitation. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-05 (1992). Thus, the Complaint does not establish the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims seeking divorce or child custody without a federal cause of action.

ETHRIDGE v. RAHMAN · filed 2023-07-20

These are not matters “arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,” and are typically issues of state law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint seeking review of a state child-custody decision when the claim does not arise under federal law.

Martin v. Division of Family Services, Department of Social Services, The Children's Division · filed 2024-02-02

Additionally, federal question jurisdiction is not present on the face of plaintiff’s complaint. To the extent plaintiff is contesting a state-court custody-related decision regarding her child or attempting to do an end-run around Missouri family court, such an action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a state child custody decision merely because the complaint cites federal statutes.

Mierisch v. St. Louis County, Missouri · filed 2024-06-27

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... In this case, no federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s complaint. Although plaintiff cites to federal statutes, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA as grounds for bringing this action, he is contesting a state court custody-related decision regarding his child and such an action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Federal-question jurisdiction generally does not extend to challenges to state custody determinations that implicate no constitutional or federal statutory right.

Haley Jr. v. Monroe County · filed 2026-05-01

State custody determinations generally fail to implicate any constitutional or federal statutory right, and as such, they must be contested in the local court where the proceedings were held.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over allegations concerning interference in a child custody dispute.

HONE v. BAKER · filed 2021-04-12

Second, Plaintiff does not raise any federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges “interference” in his “custody case” regarding his 6-year-old daughter.

Section 1331 permits a district court to resolve a collateral sanctions motion after the underlying federal-question claim is dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Haagensen v. Betty May Reed · filed 2016-11-15

The renewed motion for sanctions, however, raised an issue that the District Court was authorized to resolve. We conclude that the District Court had the authority under § 1331 to resolve this motion for sanctions.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction to interpret the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands because it is federal law.

Dunston v. Governor of the Virgin Islands · filed 2016-12-22

We disagree because the District Court had federal question jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Revised Organic Act—a federal law—pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Revised Organic Act because it is a federal statute.

Sarauw v. Rodriquez · filed 2017-02-07

As the claims arise under the ROA, a federal statute, this Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim necessarily depends on a substantial question under a congressional charter that is federal law rather than exclusively local District of Columbia law.

CareFirst, Inc. v. Taylor · filed 2017-01-09

For the reasons discussed above, GHMSI’s charter is a law of the United States, not a District of Columbia local law. The plaintiffs’ right to relief “necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,” and the court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over local class actions despite CAFA’s local-controversy provision.

Blevins v. Aksut · filed 2017-03-01

The problem with Plaintiffs’ argument is simple: § 1332(d)(4) does not affect a district court’s ability to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a class action despite CAFA’s local controversy and governmental defendant exceptions to diversity jurisdiction.

Ogden Regional Airport Association v. Ogden City Airport · filed 2022-01-11

Defendants’ jurisdiction arguments are misguided, however, because neither the government entity defendant exception nor the local controversy exception applies to class actions that are based on federal question jurisdiction, such as this case.

Under the then-applicable version of § 1331(a), each class member with a separate and distinct claim had to meet the $10,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Maria Luisa Castro Lopez, Benita Ramos Acosta, Intervenors v. Jose E. Arraras, Etc. · filed 1979-10-10(a)

It is well established that in a class action, when two or more plaintiffs having separate and distinct claims unite for convenience and economy, each member of the class must satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.

Section 1331 requires an independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law action seeks damages for alleged perjury in an earlier federal case; invoking Rule 60 does not supply one.

Palkow v. Csx Transportation, Inc., Harry Crawford and Diane Tavares · filed 2005-11-18

While a party may seek relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) by way of a motion or an independent action, here an independent statutory basis is required to support removal under the guise of federal question jurisdiction. Merely invoking the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not sufficient grounds to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction on a complaint relying only on Rule 60, because the Federal Rules do not independently supply subject matter jurisdiction.

Cherry v. New York City Department of Correction · filed 2017-10-05

It is also apparent that there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Cherry cites no relevant federal statute in his complaint or in his brief on appeal. Cherry does cite Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) and (3), but it is well-settled that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not provide an independent ground for subject matter jurisdiction over an action for which there is no other basis for jurisdiction.”

A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is not a law within Section 1331 merely because it has the force of law, so invoking Rule 11 alone does not present a federal question.

Port Drum Co. v. Umphrey · filed 1988-01-29

In conclusion, by construing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 in a manner consistent with the Rules Enabling Act, it is the opinion of this Court that said rule is not a law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Put more succinctly, because Rule 11 does not set forth any federal rights, remedies or duties of care requiring judicial construction, its use in a complaint does not present a federal question. This conclusion is further supported by Fed.R.Civ.P. 82 which states that the rules shall not be construed so as to extend or limit jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not make a case arise under federal law merely because it involves a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure; procedural rules regulate proceedings after an independent jurisdictional grant and cannot themselves create jurisdiction.

Port Drum Company v. Walter Umphrey and Kurt B. Chacon · filed 1988-08-16

Section 1331 confers federal jurisdiction in actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... The question before us, however, is not whether the rules can be enforced, as can a statute, but whether the existence of such a rule (here, specifically, Rule 11) makes a case one arising under federal law. We hold that the rule is not a “law” in that sense but is instead a regulator of a party’s proceedings once that party is in federal court pursuant to another, independent jurisdictional grant. The rules, then, only implement the exercise of jurisdiction ... otherwise ... conferred by Congress and do not provide an independent basis for parties without any other jurisdictional grant ... to get into federal court in the first place.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because resolving a state-law claim may require interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Pineville Real Estate Operation Corp. v. Michael · filed 1994-08-08

Interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even if such were required in this case, does not present a federal question for purposes of conferring federal subject matter jurisdiction under Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal issue arises only as a defense to a state-law claim.

(UD)(PS) Malik v. Powell · filed 2021-01-21

A defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting a defense based on federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based solely on a claim that a federal procedural rule was violated.

Whitehurst v. Bryant · filed 2021-08-23

However, procedural rules, themselves, do not create private causes of action, even if a party were to violate such rule(s). The Plaintiff's reliance on Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not sufficient to demonstrate federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint invokes the Federal Arbitration Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, which do not independently confer federal jurisdiction.

NSC Partners, LLC v. Eli Lilly and Company · filed 2025-03-12

The complaint does not purport to say jurisdiction is proper under the federal question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and it is not. Although both 9 U.S.C. § 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 are federal statutes, they do not independently confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on Rule 73, which creates no substantive right.

Smith v. Superior Court of California County of Alameda · filed 2025-06-30

As with Rule 11, Rule 73 is not a source of a substantive right (and certainly not a basis for subject matter jurisdiction) for a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous § 1983 claim even when defects in pleading its elements require dismissal on the merits.

Jarvis · filed 2026-02-17

Instead, the Court considers whether the complaint raises 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, over which the Court has federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... And in any event, these defects go to the merits—they do not implicate the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a private civil claim merely because the alleged conduct violates federal criminal statutes.

Moss v. Maciejowski · filed 2022-04-06

Notwithstanding their reference to numerous federal statutes, the plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a plaintiff’s reliance on a criminal statute.

Farmer · filed 2026-02-18

Indeed, as the Court previously stated, Plaintiff cannot rely on a criminal statute to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Welch Racing LLC v. Hill · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes that lack a private cause of action.

Welch v. Hester · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Welch Racing LLC v. Raia · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims based on federal criminal statutes that do not support private causes of action.

Welch v. Wright · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims under criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Welch Racing LLC v. Dallas · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction based on criminal statutes that create no private right of action.

Eiland v. United States Postal Service · filed 2022-08-31

Because none of these criminal statutes provide a private right of action, they cannot be used as a jurisdictional basis for plaintiffs claims against the USPS and HPH Milano.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on federal criminal statutes that give private plaintiffs no right of action.

Kirby v. Montgomery · filed 2019-05-01

Nonetheless, plaintiffs’ citations to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028 and 1028A fail to confer federal question jurisdiction, because those are criminal statutes that do not provide for a private right of action and, thus, are not enforceable through a civil action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal claim; invoking a criminal statute that provides no civil action does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brett v. Ken Brett · filed 2012-11-08

Federal courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but “federal courts have federal question jurisdiction only when a federal claim appears in the complaint,” Levine v. United Healthcare Corp., 402 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ... Brett does not allege any further violations of federal law for which he can assert a civil action, and so we concur with the District Court that Brett’s complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a plaintiff’s citation of federal criminal statutes when the plaintiff seeks to impose criminal liability on another party and lacks standing to do so.

Jones v. Crisis Intervention Services · filed 2017-04-19

We also agree with the District Court that Jones’s citation of various federal criminal statutes is not a basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to the extent that Jones sought to impose criminal liability on CIS, because he lacked standing to do so.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction requires a claim founded directly on federal law and does not exist when federal criminal statutes and regulations imply no private damages remedy.

Krupnick v. Union National Bank · filed 1979-05-01(a)

The court concludes that neither 12 C.F.R. § 21.5 nor any of the three federal criminal statutes implies a private federal remedy to recover damages. Thus, plaintiffs’ claim cannot be said to arise under the laws of the United States and this court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a claim under a federal criminal statute that creates no implied private right of action.

Jones v. Bell Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1991-07-26

Also, the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, cannot afford a federal court with jurisdiction over Jones’ claims because the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, does not carry with it an implied private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted criminal statute creates no federal cause of action that the plaintiffs can pursue.

Khan v. The Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2013-05-21

But 18 U.S.C. § 1005 creates a criminal offense, not a federal cause of action that appellants can pursue. Therefore, this statute does not provide a basis for federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer civil jurisdiction under the federal Mail Fraud or Wire Fraud Acts because those criminal statutes create no private civil remedy.

Official Publications, Inc. v. Kable News Co., Inc. · filed 1988-08-04

While RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), allows a private plaintiff to seek civil remedies in the district courts, the Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud Acts do not. ... This court, therefore, may not hear this case pursuant to the Mail Fraud Act or the Wire Fraud Act.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint cites only a federal criminal statute that grants no private right of action.

Chadda v. Mullins · filed 2011-06-09

Here, despite plaintiffs-appellants’ assertions regarding violations of ―federal law,‖ we discern no claims that may be fairly construed as arising under or involving federal law; as the District Court observed, the one federal statute to which plaintiffs-appellants cite is a criminal statute that does not grant a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that relies only on federal criminal statutes.

Robinson v. Pulaski Technical College · filed 2017-10-17

Robinson did not assert a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction because he relied on federal criminal statutes only, and because the complaint revealed a lack of diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (requirements for federal question jurisdiction); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution of another); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Ryan v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., 263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) (discussing diversity of citizenship).

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over claims under federal criminal statutes that create no private cause of action.

Park National Bank of Chicago v. Michael Oil Co. · filed 1989-01-06

Since the bank has no private cause of action under Section 1344 or Section 1014 which would confer jurisdiction on this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, Chicago Fleet’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a private suit alleging violations of criminal statutes designed to protect governmental interests rather than individual litigants.

Boruski v. Stewart · filed 1974-09-13

A suit based on such a theory does not present a federal question which bottoms subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U. S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim based solely on a federal criminal statute that provides no private right of action.

Bennett v. Mina · filed 2020-11-20

However, 18 U.S.C. § 472 is a federal criminal statute for which no private right of action exists. ... Thus, Bennett cannot rely on this statute to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply original jurisdiction over a private civil claim based only on federal criminal fraud statutes that provide no civil liability.

Dover v. Sachdev · filed 2021-04-22

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... However, as a private party, plaintiff cannot bring a civil claim based on a violation of a federal criminal statute. ... Federal criminal statutes are public in nature and prosecuted in the name of the United States. Thus, there is no original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes that create no private right of action.

McKenna v. HP Incorporated · filed 2022-02-07

The second category is also insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction, because none of the federal criminal statutes that Plaintiff cites create a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only asserted federal basis is a criminal statute that supplies no civil claim.

Williams v. Brill · filed 2022-09-26

Plaintiff thus cannot invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction because no claim will lie in a civil action under a federal criminal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims under federal criminal statutes that lack private causes of action.

Welch Racing LLC v. Drexler · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims under federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Welch v. Double 00 Shitshow · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal criminal statutes provide no private cause of action.

Welch Racing LLC v. Double OO Shitshow · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on federal criminal statutes that afford no private right of action.

Welch v. Double 00 Shitshow · filed 2023-08-17

However, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are federal criminal statutes that do not provide a private right of action, and therefore, cannot be used as a jurisdictional basis for this Court’s review. ... Consequently, there is no discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint and this Court cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist when the asserted federal criminal statutes provide no private cause of action.

Welch Racing LLC v. Zuckerberg · filed 2023-08-17

As the alleged claims arise under federal criminal statutes which do not support private causes of action, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Federal criminal statutes that provide no private civil cause of action cannot support federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Costa v. Asbed Guekguezian, ESQ · filed 2024-11-07

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege violations of these federal statutes. Moreover, these statutes, as criminal statutes, do not provide private civil causes of action and thus cannot be the basis of this court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based only on federal criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

FREEMAN v. TD BANK · filed 2025-02-04

While Plaintiff indicates on her Civil Cover Sheet that the description of her cause of action is “robbery and burglary” (see ECF No. 13-1), she fails to point the Court to a federal law that grants her a private right of action to bring such a claim—indeed, one does not exist. Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint relies on federal criminal statutes that private citizens cannot enforce.

Knight v. Baltimore City Child Support · filed 2025-04-03

For a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action, typically there must either be diversity of citizenship between the parties (“diversity jurisdiction”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or the action must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (“federal-question jurisdiction”), 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Neither is present here. ... Further, although Plaintiff cites to several federal criminal laws—...—it is well established that private citizens do not have a right of action to enforce criminal statutes.

A complaint alleging infringement of First Amendment rights sufficiently establishes jurisdiction under Section 1331 when its jurisdictional allegations are liberally construed.

Jenness v. Forbes · filed 1972-11-02

The jurisdictional allegations of the complaint will be construed liberally here where there is a claim of infringement of constitutional rights. The allegations of denial of First Amendment rights are sufficient to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over liberally construed claims that federal officials violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments because those claims arise under the Constitution.

Lofland v. Meyers · filed 1977-09-28(a)

A liberal reading of plaintiff’s complaint reveals that plaintiff would be wise to allege Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. ... Thus, this court bases its jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) since all of plaintiff’s claims involve matters arising under the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over questions arising under federal statutes, treaties, and the Constitution; a pro se plaintiff’s mistaken citation to section 331 may be construed as invoking section 1331.

Mousseaux v. United States Commissioner of Indian Affairs · filed 1992-10-27

Obviously, Mousseaux must have meant to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that federal courts have jurisdiction over questions arising under federal statutes, treaties, and the federal constitution. Using the rule of liberal construction, this Court holds Mousseaux’s invocation of section 331 to be an invocation of jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint sufficiently raises whether Title VII applies.

Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transportation System, Inc., Classic Coach and Bill Schoolman, Docket No. 04-0561-Cv · filed 2005-10-17

A liberal construction of the complaint shows that Aurec-chione sufficiently raised the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is applicable in this instance; this is a federal question over which the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed complaint arguably alleges violations of federal statutes, before the merits of those claims are considered.

Logan v. Matveevskii · filed 2016-03-30

Here, liberally construed, the TAC arguably alleges not just a single count of negligence, but indeed violations, of several federal statutes, to be discussed below. Therefore, at least prior to considering the merits of those claims, the Court plainly has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se complaint’s allegations support a § 1983 claim, even if the complaint does not cite § 1983.

Cinotti v. Adelman · filed 2017-09-15

However, we conclude that, although her pro se complaint does not refer to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court should have construed it liberally as asserting § 1983 claims, which provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the allegations may ultimately fail to state a claim, and a liberally construed pro se complaint facially asserting federal constitutional rights can support jurisdiction.

Stockheimer v. Underwood · filed 1977-03-15

The general rule as to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is that such jurisdiction is not defeated by the possibility that the allegations may fail to state a cause of action. ... With some reluctance, but giving due consideration to the fact that the plaintiff has proceeded pro se, this Court will liberally construe plaintiff’s allegations of interference with his right of assembly and entitlement to a fair reputation in the community as facially asserting rights of privacy and assembly sufficient to. support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal common law claims even when they do not arise under a federal statute or constitutional provision, and a pro se litigant need not cite § 1331 to invoke that jurisdiction.

Smith v. United States District Court for Southern District of Illinois · filed 1992-03-23

District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims based on federal common law; it is not necessary to base a claim on a federal statute or provision of the Constitution. National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 850, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 2450, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985); Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 99-100, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 1390-91, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972). Although Smith did not cite to § 1331, when jurisdiction is proper courts do not generally reject jurisdiction just because a pro se petitioner did not originally correctly identify a proper basis.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that, even liberally construed, asserts only state-law claims and presents no federal question.

Thompson v. D'Emilio · filed 2014-05-29

Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the District Court concluded that Thompson’s complaint, liberally construed, asserts claims arising only under state law and cannot be read to present any federal question. Thompson has not argued on appeal that he intended to assert any federal claim, and we agree with the District Court’s assessment of his complaint.

Section 1331 can supply jurisdiction over a federal claim against the United States despite a pro se plaintiff’s incorrect designation of diversity jurisdiction.

Jizmerjian v. Department of the Air Force · filed 1978-09-21

... alleged jurisdiction based on diversity, which is improper in an action against the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the proper jurisdictional basis and plaintiff’s incorrect designation of his jurisdictional basis does not warrant a F.R.C.P. 12 (b)(1) dismissal.

A court may liberally construe a pro se complaint lacking an adequate jurisdictional statement as pleading Section 1331 when federal jurisdiction is clear from the complaint’s face.

Butler v. McDonnell-Douglas Saudi Arabia Corp. · filed 1981-12-30

It is clear, of course, that the original complaint does not contain an adequate jurisdictional statement. ... it is equally clear from the face of the complaint that the proper jurisdictional statutes to be pleaded are 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). Treating the complaint as if said statutes had been pleaded, this Court finds it proper to rule on Defendant’s motion as one to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A pro se civil-rights complaint need not be dismissed for initially failing to cite Section 1331 when the omission causes no prejudice and an amended complaint alleges Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Wrenn v. State of Kan. · filed 1983-04-21

In the court’s opinion, defendants have not shown that they are in any way prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to allege jurisdiction under Title 28, and the court will not dismiss on this spurious ground. In any event, plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and defendants interpose no objection to this allegation.

A complaint invoking Section 1331 must state the jurisdictional grounds and allege facts sufficient to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, even when the plaintiff proceeds pro se.

Berry v. General Motors Corporation · filed 1988-05-03

The plaintiff in a civil action has an affirmative duty to state the grounds on which the jurisdiction of the court is based. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). Even when liberally construed, the complaint does not contain sufficient allegations or statements of fact to establish subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a pro se Fifth Amendment due-process challenge to inadequate forfeiture notice even when the plaintiff mislabeled the action as a mandamus petition.

Chavis v. United States · filed 1991-05-31

Although Chavis characterized her action as a mandamus petition, the court should have interpreted her claim as one alleging a fifth amendment due process violation, ... with jurisdiction conferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a petition that raises a federal question even when a pro se petitioner does not identify a jurisdictional statute.

Tritico v. United States Parole Commission · filed 1991-01-09

Tritico does not set forth a jurisdictional basis for his Petition. However, jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because his Petition involves a federal question.

Section 1331(a) permits a court to consider an implied Bivens action under the First, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments even when a pro se complaint does not specifically enumerate it.

Lewis v. Green · filed 1986-02-28(a)

Additionally, the plaintiffs averments conceivably state an implied cause of action under the general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and the Seventh, Fifth and First Amendments to the Constitution. ... The Court will consider this “Bivens” claim, even though the claim is not specifically enumerated in the complaint.

A pro se constitutional complaint against federal officials should be construed as a Bivens action under Section 1331, although absolute immunity may still defeat the claim.

Brown v. United States District Court for the District of Maryland Clerks Office · filed 1989-01-06

Brown's cause of action should also have been construed by the district court as a complaint against federal officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. ... When the complaint is viewed as a Bivens action, the reasoning of the district court is not sufficient grounds for dismissal. However, because the defendants have an absolute defense, Brown's claim also fails as a Bivens action.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is sufficiently asserted when a pro se complaint alleges racial employment discrimination and cites a federal racial discrimination case, even without naming a federal statute.

Streater v. Hemet Valley Hospital/medical Center and District Ron Julian Paula Brown Theresa Perry · filed 1992-03-04

Federal question jurisdiction exists when an action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Caterpillar Tractor, Co. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Although Streater does not specifically state a statutory basis for his claims, liberally construing his complaint, we find that his claim of employment discrimination based on race, together with his reference to Jackson v. Southern Cal. Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638 (9th Cir.1989), a case dealing with a federal claim of racial discrimination, are a sufficient assertion of jurisdiction to overcome dismissal of the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

Section 1331 permits a district court to assume federal question jurisdiction and reach the merits when a pro se complaint can reasonably be read as raising a constitutional claim.

Byrd v. Hunt · filed 2001-03-01

Where the possibility exists of interpreting the claim so as to suggest that it was Plaintiffs purpose to identify a violation of this specific Constitutional provision as the basis of his suit, Bell v. Hood instructs the district court to assume that jurisdiction exists and to decide the case on the merits pursuant to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Relief.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed pro se complaint alleges a violation of federal law, even if its individual claims do not expressly cite a federal statute.

Barkhorn v. International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 333 · filed 2021-02-17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires a plaintiff to establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by showing the existence of either a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Accordingly, based on a liberal construction of the Complaint, the Court finds that Barkhorn has alleged a violation of federal law and will not dismiss the Complaint on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se complaint citing federal criminal rights statutes is liberally construed to assert a civil claim under § 1983.

Reed v. Smith · filed 2021-08-05

These criminal penalties are sufficiently analogous to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, providing a civil action for a “deprivation of rights”; therefore, a liberal construction of Reed’s claims brings her suit under this Court’s federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction can rest on a federal claim suggested by a pro se complaint even when the plaintiff does not expressly identify a federal statute.

Dickson v. Schenectady Police Department · filed 2022-04-12

However, because of the special consideration due pro se litigants, a court is obligated to interpret a complaint to raise arguments that confer subject matter jurisdiction to the extent they are “suggested” by the complaint, even if they are not explicitly articulated by the plaintiff.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se complaint alleges constitutional violations, even if it cites no federal statute.

GROSSBERGER v. CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT · filed 2025-05-09

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although Plaintiff does not specifically cite to any federal statutes in his Amended Complaint, courts have found allegations of constitutional violations made by pro se litigants to be sufficient for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a pro se plaintiff’s allegations and filings show a federal statutory claim, even if the complaint does not name the statute.

Adeyemi v. amazon.com Services, LLC · filed 2025-07-21

The Court, however, need not reach that question, because the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although Plaintiff does not cite a federal statute his complaint, the facts alleged may be plausibly construed as alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and his opposition indicates that his claims arise under that statute.

Constitutional allegations in a pro se complaint can establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 even when the complaint cites no federal statute.

GROSSBERGER · filed 2025-11-25

Although Grossberger does not specifically cite to any federal statutes in his Amended Complaint, courts have found allegations of constitutional violations made by pro se litigants to be sufficient for purposes of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires an individual defendant’s domicile for general personal jurisdiction to be determined when the suit is filed.

Reddy v. Buttar · filed 2019-05-14

The plain text of this provision, because it is expressed in the present tense, requires that personal jurisdiction over the individual defendant, specifically the defendant’s domicile, be determined at the time the suit is filed.

An injunction sought under Section 1331 to compel a federal official to perform a statutory ministerial duty is subject to the mandamus jurisdiction inquiry.

Lovitky v. Trump · filed 2019-07-12

And the Court of Appeals has effectively collapsed the inquiries for mandamus and for injunctive relief, at least in this type of case: “[A] request for an injunction based on the general federal question statute is essentially a request for a writ of mandamus in this context, where the injunction is sought to compel federal officials to perform a statutorily required ministerial duty.” Swan, 100 F.3d at 976 n.1 (citing, e.g., Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 626 F.2d at 918 n.1); see also id. (characterizing relief under the “mandamus statute” as a type of “injunctive relief”). And Mr. Lovitky has conceded that [t]he availability of injunctive relief against the President is analyzed under the same principles as are applicable to mandamus relief.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 20. Accordingly, the Court shall consider whether Mr. Lovitky has established jurisdiction under the mandamus statute.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to state a federal question; a nonspecific allegation of discrimination alone is insufficient.

Bell-Boston v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2009-05-08

The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as appellant’s nonspecific allegation of discrimination in her complaint and brief on appeal, without more, is insufficient to state a federal question.

Section 1331 requires facts presenting a federal question; a general mention of discrimination or civil rights does not suffice.

Demisse v. Catholic Charities · filed 2019-04-30

While plaintiff generally mentions “discrimination” and violation of his “civil right,” he fails to actually allege any facts presenting a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a tribe’s action to enforce a tribal court judgment against a nonmember because the action necessarily raises a substantial federal question about the tribe’s authority.

Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Hawks · filed 2019-08-09

As in previous decisions involving the application of tribal law to nonmembers, we hold that actions seeking to enforce a tribal judgment against nonmembers raise a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a suit to domesticate a tribal court judgment when the claim arises under no federal law.

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Co. · filed 2010-05-28

A suit to domesticate a tribal judgment does not state a claim under federal law, whether statutory or common law. Thus, the district court lacked § 1331 jurisdiction under National Farmers to entertain the Tribe’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; allegations concerning a state residential eviction do not provide one.

Mitchell v. The Estate of Iris McLean · filed 2019-09-24

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when plaintiffs and defendants have complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Moreover, the allegations against them are related to the eviction proceeding, which does not fall under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action.

(UD)(PS)Jandro v. Murray · filed 2019-08-14

An unlawful detainer action does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action merely because a party invokes it.

Richards v. United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. · filed 2019-12-12

However, the United States Code sections plaintiffs cite do not confer federal question subject matter jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions — nor is the Court aware of any independent basis for jurisdiction over this matter.

A state-law unlawful detainer claim does not invoke federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Rowland Heights Mobile Estates v. Cheung · filed 2021-02-03

A single claim for unlawful detainer is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.

An unlawful detainer claim under state law does not present a federal question under § 1331 and cannot support federal-question jurisdiction on removal.

MCREF DT Los Angeles, LLC v. Davontay Robins · filed 2021-08-26

Defendant fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendant alleges in his Notice of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action whose complaint presents no federal question.

Marina Admiralty Company v. Seager · filed 2022-02-24

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only unlawful detainer.

Midway Plaza LP v. Zatarain · filed 2022-03-23

Last, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the sole cause of action asserted in the Complaint is for an unlawful detainer, which does not arise from the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. (See generally Compl.) As such, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that states only a state law claim.

Midway Plaza LP v. Zatarain · filed 2022-04-06

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present any federal questions and only states a state law unlawful detainer claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful-detainer action with no federal basis.

MG Victoria Arbors apartments SLM LLC v. Ames · filed 2022-10-12

As there is no federal basis for MG Victoria’s, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Unified Property Management Inc. v. Leberry · filed 2023-01-12

Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff's Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only a California unlawful-detainer claim.

Gress v. Bergin · filed 2023-01-24

The assertion of a cause of action for unlawful detainer under California law does not raise a federal question for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law unlawful detainer.

Chase Pacific, LLC v. Lewis · filed 2023-06-23

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. ... Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer claim that raises no federal question.

KCM Brentwood, LLC v. Tinsley · filed 2023-08-21

Unlawful detainer claims do not arise under federal law and thus, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer action that does not arise under federal law.

Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Wilburn · filed 2023-11-29

A federal court shall have subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve questions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, this action does not arise out of federal law, and thus the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that states no claim arising under federal law.

511 S Park View, Inc., A CA Corp. v. Vargas · filed 2023-12-15

Here, federal question jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions arising under state law.

SSR Miracle Mile LLC v. Dostaly · filed 2024-01-25

Unlawful detainer actions do not arise under federal law; they arise under state law. Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions because they arise under state law.

Grigoryan v. Hernandez · filed 2024-03-13

Unlawful detainer actions do not arise under federal law; they arise under state law. Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only unlawful detainer.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Vien Phuog Ho · filed 2024-06-18

A claim for unlawful detainer—the sole claim alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint—is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only a California unlawful detainer claim.

CP IV 8 Olive LLC v. Quintanilla · filed 2024-07-01

As several courts in this district have held, a single claim for unlawful detainer does not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action asserting only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim.

Pama IV Properties LP v. Perez · filed 2025-02-07

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 6. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law unlawful detainer claims.

Keshava LLC v. Goyens · filed 2025-02-20

It is well-established that state-law unlawful detainer claims do not “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only an unlawful-detainer claim.

Harbor Property Management Inc. v. McKnight · filed 2025-03-07

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 7. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Verbena WRC 15th LP v. Scott · filed 2025-04-21

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 8. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action asserting only a state-law claim.

Hernandez v. Mourou · filed 2025-05-05

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 9. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only claim is for unlawful detainer under state law.

CSCDA Community Improvement Authority v. Moore · filed 2025-07-09

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. See dkt. 1 at 7. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a Maryland wrongful detainer action arising under state law.

Task LLC v. Cade · filed 2025-07-29

This case is an in rem wrongful detainer action arising under Maryland state law and involving real property located in Maryland. ... The purported Complaint is not within this court’s original federal question jurisdiction and thus is not removable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only an unlawful detainer claim.

Maguire Properties 755 S Fig LLC v. Grant · filed 2025-08-01

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. See dkt. 1 at 10. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a California unlawful detainer action that raises no federal issue.

JMK Properties, Inc. v. Heatherly · filed 2025-09-12

Here, the Court finds there is no federal question jurisdiction because the state court action is an unlawful detainer proceeding pursuant to California law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only claim is a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

Tangirala v. Espinoza · filed 2025-10-22

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 1-2. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only an unlawful detainer claim.

3929 Sunset Hollywood LLC v. Aredondo · filed 2025-12-18

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. See dkt. 1 at 1-2. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must remand.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action when the complaint presents no federal question.

LA Flower Street Apartments, LP v. Urioste · filed 2020-03-04

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an ERISA counterclaim even when the counterclaimant cannot state a viable claim for relief.

Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 80 Pension Trust Fund v. Cooling · filed 2008-05-14

There can be no doubt, however, that federal courts have authority to adjudicate disputes arising under ERISA. ... Because the plaintiff is challenging the defendant’s ability to proceed on its counterclaim, as opposed to the Court’s authority to adjudicate it, the Court rejects the contention that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.

Section 1331 gives a federal court original jurisdiction over a copyright claim even when the federal claim may be weak.

Doe I v. Individuals · filed 2008-06-13

Pro bono counsel for Doe 21 suggested at oral argument and in supplemental papers that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because the jurisdictional basis for a copyright claim is weak and “manufactured” for the purposes of this litigation. However, this Court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States;” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... The merits of the copyright claims have not been briefed, and the Court declines to dismiss the entire case because the federal claim might be "weak.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint invoking federal statutory claims even if the complaint may inadequately plead the elements of those claims.

Moore v. National YMCA Inc. · filed 2019-08-28

Thus, regardless of whether he has adequately stated facts sufficient to state a claim under either of those laws, his complaint on its face sufficiently demonstrates the prerequisites necessary for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges insufficient facts to support its federal claims.

Cabanag v. Tripp · filed 2020-09-14

She has raised insufficient facts to establish that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on conclusory assertions of discrimination and due process violations.

Johnson v. New York State Division of Human Rights · filed 2022-02-17

However, these conclusory statements are insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely references a constitutional right or labels itself a federal-question case.

Johnson v. Connell · filed 2022-02-28

However, this mere passing reference to a Constitutional right is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction. ... The invocation of “440: Other Civil Rights: Federal Question” is also insufficient.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim under federal law; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction or naming “civil rights” does not establish it.

Hatwood v. Ricotta · filed 2022-08-01

While Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and states “civil rights” in response to her form complaint’s question about which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated (ECF 2, at 2), she alleges no facts showing that the Court has federal question jurisdiction with respect to her claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff invokes the Fourteenth Amendment without factual support or a theory establishing federal jurisdiction.

Edwards v. Roth · filed 2022-09-19

The plaintiff, in his complaint, asserts subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or federal question jurisdiction, and cites the Fourteenth Amendment as the Constitutional provision at issue. (ECF No. 1-1, at 3.) Specifically, the plaintiff appears to allege that his right to due process has been violated. (/d.) Crucially, the plaintiff provides neither factual support for his claim nor a theory of how the Court properly has jurisdiction over this state law claim. The plaintiff fails to bear his burden in establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises state-law claims and makes only a passing reference to federal constitutional rights.

Ataroua v. Tamir · filed 2022-12-19

Although Plaintiff mentions that he has suffered “expectancy damages arising from due process violation” (ECF 2 at 7), this passing reference to federal constitutional rights is insufficient to allege a right to relief that depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes constitutional rights without identifying the federal provision implicated by the alleged conduct.

KANG v. SIVILLI · filed 2022-12-28

Kang neither elaborates on any federal statute or provision implicated by the defendants’ alleged acts nor demonstrates that his requested relief is independent from the state court action. Accordingly, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites federal laws but alleges no facts supporting a federal claim.

Pajarillo v. Schuler-Hintz · filed 2023-02-17

Pajarillo’s Amended Complaint does not support federal question jurisdiction. While he refers to several federal statutes and regulations, he does not allege any facts that would support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a federal claim; vague allegations and passing references to § 1983 do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hillman v. Borough of Collingdale · filed 2023-03-08

It is apparent that Hillman’s allegations do not form any basis for federal question jurisdiction.