28 U.S.C. § 1331

A complaint alleging a landlord-tenant and stolen-property dispute without facts supporting a federal-law violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Mickelson v. Anderson · filed 2025-04-02

As such, there are no factual allegations in the complaint that support a violation of federal law to give rise to federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law.

Greene v. Price Self Storage West LA LLC · filed 2025-04-22

He does not allege that his claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and having reviewed his complaint, the Court can discern no federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and no plausible federal claim.

Colbert v. Robertson · filed 2025-04-23

A federal claim is not plausibly alleged even when construing the pleading liberally. Thus, federal subject matter jurisdiction cannot be based on § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not support a federal claim.

Greene v. Rite Aid Culver City · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against 430 South under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, his allegations do not correspond to any federal claim, and thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over his case based on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not support a federal claim.

Greene v. Garland County Arkansas · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against 430 South under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, his allegations do not correspond to any federal claim, and thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over his case based on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not support a federal claim.

Greene v. Eastside Orthopedic Medical Associates · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against 430 South under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, his allegations do not correspond to any federal claim, and thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over his case based on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not support a federal claim.

Greene v. MV Transportation Inc · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against 430 South under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, his allegations do not correspond to any federal claim, and thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over his case based on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no federal claim, even if the plaintiff invokes the section.

Greene v. 430 South Los Angeles Street LLC · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against 430 South under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ECF No. 1 at 4, his allegations do not correspond to any federal claim, and thus the Court does not have jurisdiction over his case based on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations fail to support a federal claim.

Greene v. Global Care Medical Group · filed 2025-04-24

While Greene purportedly brings his claims against First to Serve under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, his allegations fail to support any federal claim.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are insubstantial because four cited laws provide no private cause of action and the remaining law is wholly immaterial to the alleged facts.

PETERY · filed 2025-04-25

Here, the Court finds that the instant Amended Complaint meets this standard because four of the five federal laws cited do not supply a private cause of action and the fifth is wholly immaterial to any events described in the Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Pegouske v. Sofi Bank · filed 2025-05-02

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he or she “pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims and no facts supporting a violation of federal law.

Mickelson v. Anderson · filed 2025-05-07

As such, there are no factual allegations in the complaint that support a violation of federal law to give rise to federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; allegations based on federal law wholly inapplicable to the dispute do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

King v. RideSafely Inc · filed 2025-05-16

Plaintiff's supposed federal claims are based on a federal statute and a federal regulation that are wholly inapplicable and immaterial to this case. ... Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the sole federal claim fails, requiring dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

SAVELJIC v. BAYTARIAN · filed 2025-05-22

Without a viable federal claim, the entire action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a valid federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction; adding defendants alone does not establish it.

McFarland v. St. Louis County Family Court Division · filed 2025-05-28

The addition of new defendants does not, in itself, confer subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff must still allege either a valid federal claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or complete diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. He has done neither.

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

Bey v. Arkansas State Police · filed 2025-06-10

Further, Mr. Bey has not stated any federal claims that could support federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege sufficient facts supporting a federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dodev v. D.R. Horton Incorporated · filed 2025-06-11

The complaint must allege sufficient facts supporting one of these claims for federal question jurisdiction. Am. Well Works, 241 U.S. at 260.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a property dispute that alleges no federal claim.

Officer v. Abell · filed 2025-06-12

As no constitutional violation is alleged, Officer does not state a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, no federal question jurisdiction exists over Officer’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal constitutional claim.

Tsadik v. BusPatrol America, LLC · filed 2025-06-16

In light of Rotenberg and Marks’ representation, the Complaint in this action does not assert a claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and this Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over the Rotenberg action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; allegations that suggest no federal claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dunbar v. ABC World News Network · filed 2025-06-16

The facts alleged do not suggest any federal claim against the named defendants. Plaintiff thus does not show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

El Shaddai v. Knoxville TVA Employees Credit Union · filed 2025-06-17

Plaintiff fails to plead any claim under the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a wholly insubstantial and frivolous claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Shaddai v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2025-06-17

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction is properly invoked if a plaintiff “pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). At the same time, a claim is not colorable if it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513 n. 10 (internal citations omitted). ... Dismissal is appropriate here under Rule 12(b)(1) as Plaintiffs allegations are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple, 183 F.3d at 479.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Dunn v. Noble Credit Union · filed 2025-06-25

In sum, Plaintiff has not articulated any cognizable federal claim over which this Court may assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law or the Constitution for federal question jurisdiction.

Benson v. Christianson · filed 2025-06-26

And because she has failed to “properly invoke[ ] § 1331 jurisdiction” by pleading “a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States,” the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ramjas v. Wilknowski · filed 2025-06-27

Under the first type, federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must have a claim based on a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The complaint does not include any factual allegations suggesting a federal claim against any of the defendants. It vaguely asserts dissatisfaction with defendants Wilknowski and Natalie’s representation of plaintiff in a criminal case, but these statements do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim under federal law; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Dunbar v. Casey · filed 2025-07-01

Here, Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but nothing in the complaint suggests a viable claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim that refers to ADA standards when the federal issue is not substantial.

STALLARD v. REDNER'S MARKETS, INC. · filed 2025-07-07

Despite its reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the original complaint does not raise a “substantial” issue of federal law sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction under Grable, Empire Healthcare, and Gunn.

Section 1331 requires a claim under the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty; identifying no federal provision that permits a private civil claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Okutuga v. Miller · filed 2025-07-09

Federal question jurisdiction exists where at least one of a plaintiff’s claims is brought pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff has only identified 18 U.S.C. §112(d), which is a criminal statute relating to “Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons.” Plaintiff has not identified any federal constitutional provision or law that would allow her to bring a private civil claim in federal court for the type of theft-related incident she describes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a § 1983 complaint that alleges no violation of federal law or the federal Constitution.

Villalobos v. State of California · filed 2025-07-09

The Court dismisses the complaint because it does not allege a violation of federal law or the federal constitution, which is required to bring an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for federal question jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; claims based only on a regulation and statute that provide no private right of action do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jevnikar v. Slawinski · filed 2025-07-22

Because Plaintiff's only claim related to federal law is based on a regulation and statute that do not allow for a private right of action, her Amended Complaint does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Carter v. Camba Housing Ventures, Inc. · filed 2025-07-23

A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when they plead a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Plaintiff’s allegations, even liberally construed, fail to state a claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint states no claim under federal law.

DEAN v. TAKE FLIGHT ADVISORS, LLC · filed 2025-07-28

Plaintiff’s State Court Complaint states no claim under federal law, and thus there is no basis for jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

FEINGOLD v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE · filed 2025-07-31

And Mr. Feingold has not established we enjoy federal question jurisdiction over this controversy because he still does not plead a federal claim.

Section 1331 provides no basis for federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no cognizable federal claim.

Coon v. DCI Credit Services · filed 2025-08-01

As Defendant is not a state actor and is not otherwise alleged to have violated any federal law, there is no basis for this court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim to be more than incidental to a state-law claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

McBride v. Housing Authority of the County of Jackson, Illinois · filed 2025-08-06

The federal ground asserted to establish jurisdiction must be more than incidental to a state-law claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is so lacking in merit that it is not colorable.

Keen v. Keen · filed 2025-08-14

Because Keen’s allegations fail to state a colorable RICO claim, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to allege enough facts to show a sufficiently substantial federal claim.

Brown v. South Bend Clinic · filed 2025-08-14

Her complaint and attachments do not allege enough facts to state a federal claim that is sufficiently substantial. Johnson, 551 F.3d at 570. Therefore, Brown has not established jurisdiction as required.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

GRAY v. POWERSPORTS · filed 2025-08-15

Here, although Plaintiff asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff does not point to any violation of federal law or the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show a sufficiently substantial federal claim on its face; an apparent state-law breach of contract claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Zellers v. Songtrust Music Publishing · filed 2025-08-15

Construed liberally, Zellers’ complaint seems to allege breach of contract claims, which arise under state law, not “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The facts alleged are thus not enough to state a federal claim that is sufficiently substantial. Zellers has therefore not established jurisdiction as required.

A claim under § 4101 is not colorable and cannot support federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 because § 4101 provides no private right of action.

De Ciel v. Porter · filed 2025-08-28

Thus, Plaintiff’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 4101 fails as a matter of law and it is not a “colorable claim” that can provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; conclusory references to federal statutes do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Nero v. Lesher · filed 2025-09-02

Plaintiff’s Complaint and his Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause offer only conclusory references to a variety of federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. (See Docs. 1, 9.) The factual allegations of the Complaint do not support a colorable federal claim.

Section 1331 requires an arguable or colorable federal claim; a purported § 1983 claim with no plausible state action cannot support federal-question jurisdiction.

Dantzler v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. · filed 2025-09-05

As Dantzler’s Petition fails to identify any state actors and fails to plead factual allegations from which one could plausibly conclude that the acts of Defendants were fairly attributable to the state or that Defendants conspired with any state actors, Dantzler’s Section 1983 claim against Defendants is not arguable or colorable, and thus cannot support federal question jurisdiction.

Invoking § 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no federal claim on its face.

Frye v. Cowman · filed 2025-09-24

The proposed First Amended Complaint [22-1] ostensibly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but on its face, it does not state a federal claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal constitutional claim even if the claim fails to state a basis for relief.

CDDM Corporation v. Lansing, City of · filed 2025-10-02

These claims plainly create federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because CDDM’s claims are not utterly frivolous, the Court has jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no plausible facts supporting a viable federal claim.

Griffin · filed 2025-10-03

Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges no plausible facts suggesting any viable federal claim, constitutional or otherwise, against Defendants. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are clearly immaterial, made solely to obtain jurisdiction, or wholly unsubstantiated and frivolous.

Crawford v. Oguleye · filed 2025-10-06

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where any federal claims are “clearly immaterial, made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or are wholly unsubstantiated and frivolous.” ... Mr. Crawford’s citations to §§ 3617, 242, and 1983 fit that description.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Haas · filed 2025-10-06

To invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Hunter must plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Liberally construing Hunter’s allegations, he has not pleaded a viable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Because federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable, the Court must consider whether diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts supporting a violation of federal law.

Winters v. Kenosha County Sheriff's Department · filed 2025-10-10

As such, there are no factual allegations in the complaint that support a violation of federal law to give rise to federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites the Constitution but asserts no claim under federal law.

Dever · filed 2025-10-14

Because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not state a claim under federal law, the court does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal claim is not lost merely because the complaint fails to plausibly allege that claim.

Morales · filed 2025-10-22

Although the Court ultimately concludes that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege their FLSA claim, the federal claims were not so frivolous as to deprive the Court of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an actionable federal claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Chan · filed 2025-10-22

The Plaintiff alleged no “actionable claim for relief” for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor did he allege diversity of citizenship for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). ... The Court finds no clear error and adopts the R&R in its entirety.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no claim under the Constitution or other federal law.

Stern · filed 2025-10-23

Even if the Court were to read into Williams’s mention of jurisdiction over claims arising under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment as an attempt to argue for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint makes no mention of a constitutional claim. The statement of claim in the complaint consists of the following statement: “mortgage fraud, emotional stress damage my personal credit” and lists two related cases. ECF No. 1 § III. There is no statement of claim related to any constitutional rights. Therefore, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal constitutional claim.

Macomber · filed 2025-10-24

Accordingly, plaintiff has raised a federal Constitutional claim over which this court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim seeking relief under federal law unless the claim is frivolous or wholly insubstantial.

Farnham · filed 2025-11-17

While Campari contends that Farnham cannot prevail on his claims, it does not show that the claims are so attenuated or frivolous as to deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a complaint that identifies no federal law and plausibly alleges no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

James · filed 2025-11-20

Federal question jurisdiction exists where at least one of a plaintiff’s claims is brought pursuant to the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not identify any federal statutes or constitutional provisions, and she has not alleged facts to plausibly state an evident federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plead a colorable claim arising under federal law or the Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Beckodro v. Southeast Tire & Services · filed 2025-11-24

To invoke federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, Beckodro had to “plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts supporting a viable federal cause of action.

Payton · filed 2025-11-26

Because Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting that any of these federal antidiscrimination statutes apply to his claims,” and because his allegations do not suggest any other viable federal cause of action, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction here after dismissal of the only federal claim.

Corewest Resources LLC-FZ v. Gideon Group Incorporated · filed 2025-12-16

The Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case because the RICO claim has been dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Archelus · filed 2026-01-07

For the court to assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must “plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; merely asserting a federal claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Hameed · filed 2026-01-30

But, as noted, “[t]he mere assertion of a federal claim is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).” ... The Court thus finds this case indistinguishable from Lovern and concludes that Hameed’s federal - claims fail to pass muster under the substantiality doctrine.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; an asserted constitutional right to housing does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Codio · filed 2026-02-03

Plaintiff does not otherwise allege any plausible facts to suggest he was denied a benefit to which he is entitled “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff thus fails to properly invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a territorial-law claim unless its embedded federal issue is substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Apex Construction Co Inc v. United States Virgin Islands · filed 2026-02-05

For a state or territorial law claim to “arise under” federal law and create federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the claim must raise a federal issue that is: “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” ... Because these claims do not implicate a substantial federal issue, the District Court properly dismissed them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no plausible federal claim.

Haynes · filed 2026-02-09

Therefore, “given the absence of any plausible federal claim . . . the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,” and the complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Simonetti v. Simonetti · filed 2026-02-18

But Simonetti does not raise “colorable” claims under either statute, so they cannot form the basis for federal-question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no viable federal claim.

Warfield · filed 2026-03-24

Without a viable federal claim, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state- law claims.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when a federal statutory claim materially supports the requested relief and is not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Jean-Louis · filed 2026-03-30

As a result, because Aollywood has sufficiently alleged that it is materially and substantially relying on the Lanham Act to assert its alleged rights, its contentions are not “so patently without merit as to justify . . . the court's dismissal for want [of] jurisdiction.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. at 683.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims concerning nonpayment or enforcement of state court child-support orders merely because the plaintiff lists federal laws as being at issue.

Lucas · filed 2026-04-10

Therefore, there is no viable federal claim against these Defendants on which to base “federal question” jurisdiction, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a purported federal claim is foreclosed by precedent and completely devoid of merit.

Powell · filed 2026-04-13

His § 1983 claims against private actors are “foreclosed by prior precedent and completely devoid of merit,” see id., and they cannot form the basis of federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Jenkins · filed 2026-04-29

Thus, to proceed in federal court, Jenkins must establish this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, which is ordinarily accomplished through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jenkins’ Complaint does not state a claim under federal laws, nor does he alleged diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim; allegations of medical malpractice or negligence under state law alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mark Kenneth Anderson, Jr. v. Kira D. Labby, Kevin Carr, Tony Ever, RGCI Warden John Doe 1, Angela Thompson, CCI Warden · filed 2026-05-12

Generally, a plaintiff suing in federal court must show either that he is raising a federal claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, known as federal-question jurisdiction, or that he and the defendants are citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 is in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, known as diversity jurisdiction. Anderson’s allegations of medical malpractice or negligence support Wisconsin-law claims, not a federal claim for relief.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim; a claim under the state-law UCCJEA does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gill · filed 2026-05-14

Thus, Plaintiff has no federal claim under the UCCJEA, and she has not met her burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is lacking when the only asserted federal claim is not viable.

Olivieri · filed 2026-05-28

However, in the absence of a viable federal claim, the federal question jurisdiction on which this action depends is lacking and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails plausibly to allege a valid federal claim.

MICHAEL WASHINGTON, aka MICHA PALMER v. NICK CLARK, CHAREDA FULLER, GETS IT LLC d/b/a GITS IT REAL ESTATE LLC, LAURA AUS · filed 2026-06-09

Without a valid federal claim, Plaintiff has failed plausibly to allege that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Chowdhury v. N.Y.C. Housing Auth. · filed 2026-06-12

First, the complaint failed to establish jurisdiction based on a federal question. A plaintiff will properly invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). ... The complaint accordingly failed to plead a colorable federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Fosu v. Steven Richard, et al. · filed 2026-06-25

Subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a federal claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a sufficiently substantial Fourteenth Amendment claim against a city.

Gagliardi v. Flint · filed 1977-12-06

Thus, we conclude that the fourteenth amendment claim against the City was sufficiently substantial to vest the district court with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to decide the merits of a federal claim that is neither wholly frivolous nor too insubstantial for consideration.

Martinez v. United States Olympic Committee · filed 1986-10-06

We find initially, therefore, that this case is neither wholly frivolous nor too insubstantial for consideration, and hence the district court should have held it had federal question jurisdiction to decide the merits of the claim.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint sufficiently alleges a federal claim, even if that claim ultimately fails.

Hughes v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Association Of The City Of New York, Inc. · filed 1988-06-15

Thus, viewing the complaint on its face, it alleged facts sufficient to establish--assuming the facts were proven--a violation of Sec. 1983. In light of this, the district court properly rejected appellants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss made prior to trial for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction and correctly held that jurisdiction existed either pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 or Sec. 1343.

A federal claim establishes federal-question jurisdiction if it is not so patently without merit as to warrant dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Mann v. Underground Tank Containment Systems, Inc. · filed 1989-06-22

Because Count I of the Amended Complaint is not “patently without merit,” federal jurisdiction has been established. Accordingly, Counts I, II and VIII will not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires an arguable claim arising under federal law; not every issue must depend entirely on interpreting federal law.

Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Mcimetro Access Transmission Services, Inc. · filed 2003-01-10

The resolution of each issue need not depend completely upon an interpretation of federal law. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 jurisdiction, all that is required is that there be an arguable claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a nonfrivolous federal claim, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric · filed 2004-03-16

But we cannot say that Churchill's claims under subsections (a) and (b) are so untenable in light of their conformity to the plain language of the statute and the absence of a distinctiveness requirement as to prohibit federal jurisdiction under the "non-frivolous assertion" standard announced in Bollard. The district court therefore properly exercised jurisdiction over the settlement.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims seeking recovery directly under the Constitution when they are not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Robert Harper, Jr. v. McDonald · filed 1982-06-08

Appellant’s complaint seeks recovery directly under the Constitution, and we do not believe that his claims are “wholly insubstantial,” “frivolous,” or “absolutely devoid of merit.” We therefore hold that jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims exists in the district court, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that necessarily presents a substantial federal issue.

Ownby v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs. Found., P.C. · filed 2018-07-31

A claim may arise under federal law, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, if it necessarily presents a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a claim completely devoid of merit does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lynn v. Brown · filed 2020-02-07

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Ms. Lynn failed to state a colorable RICO claim, and that the district court therefore lacked federal-question jurisdiction over her purported RICO Complaint.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when a claim is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

A&B Alternative Mktg. Inc. v. Int'l Quality Fruit Inc. · filed 2022-05-31

It is true that “[a] claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . . . may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513 n.10 (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)). A&B’s claims do not fall in that category.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Paul · filed 2026-01-27

There are two types of federal subject-matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction, which requires a claim based on a federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, which requires a lawsuit with a value of greater than $75,000 and in which no defendant is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff does not assert a claim based on any federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim with at least some substantiality to support federal-question jurisdiction.

William H. Nolan, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Meyer · filed 1975-07-29(a)

The last point, however, is not essential to our conclusion that the federal cause of action upon which Nolan relies for § 1331 jurisdiction is so insubstantial that the complaint was properly dismissed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no basis for a federal claim.

Firnhaber v. Lake Pewaukee Sanitary District · filed 1976-02-19

The foregoing demonstrates that there is no basis for a federal claim or federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1343(3).

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a sufficiently substantial constitutional claim even when the availability of a remedy remains unresolved.

Gagliardi v. Flint · filed 1977-08-10

Thus, we conclude that the fourteenth amendment claim against the City was sufficiently substantial to vest the district court with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim when jurisdiction rests on an alleged due process violation; a frivolous claim does not suffice.

Davis v. Chong M. Pak Ralph G. Cantrell Diane E. France, in Their Official & Individual Capacities · filed 1988-09-13

Davis also relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for jurisdiction. However, since she asserts only the due process violation as the basis of jurisdiction, the jurisdictional analysis under both statutes is the same.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when allegations on the face of a complaint, taken as true, sufficiently present a federal claim, even if that claim may fail on the merits.

Thomason v. Lehrer · filed 1998-08-21

These facts, as alleged on the face of the Second Amended Complaint and taken as true, are minimally sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Rubin v. Mastercard International, LLC · filed 2004-10-14

The “federal ingredient” in this action is therefore insufficient to give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless federal law creates the claim or its resolution necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Colbert v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2007-04-30

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, if “ ‘a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,’ ” then it “arises” under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In sum, the Court does not find this case to represent the rare occasion when jurisdiction based on the substantial federal question doctrine is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when federal issues arise only as possible defenses and are too insubstantial to support jurisdiction.

American Systems Consulting, Inc. v. Devier · filed 2007-08-28

But even assuming arguendo that this case implicates a disputed federal issue or issues, the federal issues here — the interpretation of federal contracts, statutes, and regulations — at best inform only possible defenses to select state law claims. ... The potential examination of federal law in this case presents simply too insubstantial analysis or interpretation to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over state-law claims that necessarily raise a substantial federal issue, even when the federal law provides no private right of action.

Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg · filed 2007-09-21

The court’s investigation of the law surrounding straw purchases under these circumstances convinces the court that this is an “important issue of federal law that sensibly belongs in a federal court” as the Supreme Court found the federal tax question in Grable.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law, even when the defendant disputes an element of that claim.

Rodriguez v. DIEGO'S RESTAURANT, INC. · filed 2009-04-15

The plaintiff has asserted claims under the FLSA, a federal law. ... These claims are neither insubstantial or solely made for the purposes of obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction. “A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... Therefore the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under section 1331’s broad grant of jurisdiction or under section 1337.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a colorable federal-law claim even if the plaintiff may fail to prove an element of that claim.

Padilla v. Manlapaz · filed 2009-06-23

Defendants do not argue, nor does it appear from the record, that Plaintiffs FLSA claims are either insubstantial or made solely for the purposes of obtaining subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law even if the complaint fails to plead an element of that claim.

Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7 · filed 2009-06-25

Because the plaintiff properly pleaded a colorable claim arising under a law of the United States, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a due process claim based solely on an allegation that a municipal ordinance violates state law when the claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2009-07-10

With the benefit of these submissions, we conclude that Lone Star’s invalid-ordinance claim fails to raise a colorable federal question, and the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

A state consumer-fraud claim does not arise under § 1331 merely because it uses an alleged federal statutory violation as a predicate act.

Skypala v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2009-09-01

No federal cause of action is pled and Plaintiff’s claims arise under the NJCFA, not federal law.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even when a disputed element of that claim also bears on its merits.

Bennett v. CMH Homes, Inc. · filed 2014-10-30

The Court clarified that a plaintiff need not prove the entire cause of action to obtain jurisdiction, but rather must only plead a “colorable claim” that “arises under a federal law.” Id. at 513 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331) (internal edits omitted). ... Because the question of whether plaintiffs’ home is a “consumer product” implicates both jurisdiction and the merits of plaintiffs’ claim, we find jurisdiction and address the question as a merits issue.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a claim sounding only in state law fraud does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Abergel v. Resorts World Casino · filed 2019-08-13

But even after liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, the Court is unable to discern any factual allegations that credibly suggest the existence of a “colorable federal claim” on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; investment fraud allegations without facts suggesting a federal claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jean v. Pierre · filed 2019-10-08

The plaintiffs therefore fail to present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; allegations that bank employees stole funds from an account do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. Giorgio · filed 2019-11-05

The complaint does not raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a wholly insubstantial or frivolous claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Riter v. Wacker · filed 2020-01-24

Under § 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff “pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... Even construing Plaintiffs’ Complaint as asserting a § 1983 claim, such claim is neither colorable nor arguable; rather, it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” or “patently without merit.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint can be construed to assert a colorable federal claim, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

KROISS v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES · filed 2020-09-30

A claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” also referred to as the insubstantiality doctrine. ... As Plaintiffs’ complaint is construed to make claims under federal law, and cognizant of Plaintiffs’ pro se status, the court accepts the complaint as sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a possible defense involves a federal regulation; the federal issue must be substantial.

Santelices v. Apttus Corporation · filed 2020-10-02

Although perhaps a fact-intensive exercise, determining whether Defendants complied with Rule 701 does not appear to involve “the validity, construction or effect of federal law” that is required to be considered “substantial.” ... The Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an insubstantial federal claim or claims arising only under state law.

PATTERSON v. BUTLER · filed 2020-12-15

Accordingly, any claim invoking § 1983 as a source of federal question jurisdiction is too insubstantial to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law; disputes over whether the plaintiff can prove the claim concern the merits.

United States v. Andrews · filed 2021-06-11

To invoke subject matter jurisdiction under section 1331, the plaintiff must plead a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law, even if the claim fails to state a basis for relief.

Michelson v. Coon · filed 2021-07-15

A plaintiff properly invokes a district court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he “pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. at 513 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1331 alone does not establish jurisdiction when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Black v. Presence Health · filed 2021-08-27

But “§ 1331 itself does not confer subject matter jurisdiction.” Okere v. United States, 983 F.3d 900, 903 (7th Cir. 2020).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim for a federal right or remedy.

Nespor v. United States · filed 2022-05-12

One such avenue for jurisdiction is via a “federal question.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction exists where the plaintiff brings forth a “non-frivolous claim of a federal right or remedy is sufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.” Stanko vy. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 916 F.3d 694, 698 (8th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Here, petitioner Nespor brings forward his timely motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In so doing, this Court is vested with subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a colorable federal claim, even if that claim may fail on the merits.

LoanStreet Inc. v. Troia · filed 2022-08-17

These allegations easily hurdle the low bar required for federal question jurisdiction. As such, defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) arguments fail.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a petitioner pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law; disputes about the claim’s merits do not defeat jurisdiction.

GODINEZ v. GODINEZ · filed 2022-10-13

This Court concludes that Mr, Godinez’s Petition survives a facial jurisdictional attack pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), such that this Court properly asserts jurisdiction under 22 U.S.C. § 9003(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not lost when a plaintiff withdraws a federal claim that was not so defective as to deprive the court of jurisdiction.

Probiv v. Pay Cargo LLC · filed 2023-01-11

However, the dismissal of the RICO claim does not deprive the Court of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Even if the Court had been inclined to dismiss Plaintiff’s RICO claim on the merits—in the absence of Plaintiff’s withdrawal—the Court declines to find that the RICO claim was so defective as to deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; listing federal statutes without facts that implicate a federal question does not establish jurisdiction.

Hanna v. Camba Inc. · filed 2023-09-25

Indeed, Plaintiff fails to plead any facts from which the Court could infer that he raises a federal question. Plaintiff’s complaint and response to the Court’s order to show cause largely contains allegations concerning alleged harassment and unprofessional behavior by Defendant’s staff and Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s concerns. In short, Plaintiff’s allegations do not implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 does not keep a case in federal court after the federal claim against the served defendant is dismissed when the remaining federal claim is against an unserved defendant.

UNITED GRANITE & QUARTZ, INC. v. EMURO TRANSPORT, LLC · filed 2023-12-22

Because the parties have agreed that the sole federal claim against TQL is subject to dismissal, there is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a frivolous claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Maurice:Jones v. Girard Water Department · filed 2024-03-29

A Plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he “pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). ... Plaintiff’s attempt to characterize the Water Department’s refusal to accept fictional methods of payment as involuntary servitude is frivolous. The Complaint contains no federal claim. Plaintiff failed to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a claim based on the Declaration of Independence does not qualify because the Declaration grants no enforceable rights.

Rywelski v. Biden · filed 2024-05-01

A plaintiff properly invokes federal-question jurisdiction when he pleads “a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... The Declaration of Independence is thus a statement of principles and ideas, not of law, and does not grant enforceable rights. ... Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Mr. Rywelski’s allegations didn’t confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; passing references to federal laws do not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Smith v. Keller · filed 2024-05-15

As explained above, passing references to federal laws are insufficient to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to plead a plausible federal claim.

Menefee v. Smith · filed 2025-01-16

So Menefee fails to state a claim for a relief under Section 1983 and he raises no other federal claim. ... He therefore fails to carry his burden of showing that subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even when the defendant argues that the federal statute does not reach the alleged conduct.

Jenkins v. Miller · filed 2025-02-28

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, the claim against Miller under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) is not insubstantial or frivolous given the significant conspiracy claims, as well as the dispute about Miller’s residence and domicile. See id. Nor is there any indication that Jenkins brought a federal claim solely for the purpose of establishing federal court jurisdiction. See id. The Court may therefore assert subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when the complaint’s asserted constitutional theory presents no substantial federal question.

Association for the Preservation of Freedom of Choice, Inc. v. Simon · filed 1962-02-06

Consequently, Judge Murphy was correct when he ruled that there is no substantial federal question in this phase of the case. ... We reach the same result, namely that there is no substantial federal question in this phase of the case, with respect to appellant Foundation and for the same reasons as those briefly stated in the foregoing part of this opinion concerning the other appellant.

Section 1331 gives jurisdiction to determine an asserted constitutional claim unless the claim is plainly unsubstantial, even when the complaint ultimately fails to state a claim for relief.

Spiesel v. City of New York · filed 1964-11-21

The rule is that the mere assertion of such a claim is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to determine it, unless the claim is plainly unsubstantial. ... I therefore hold that the assertion of this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court to decide it, and hence that the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when the asserted constitutional claim presents no substantial federal question.

Offermann v. Nitkowski · filed 1965-12-09

A declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are sought and jurisdiction is claimed under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Since it is clear that no substantial federal question is presented, the court need not decide whether the action would otherwise require the convening of a three judge court.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction requires concrete facts supporting the alleged constitutional invalidity; a bare assertion that local ordinances are unconstitutional is insufficient.

Wallach v. City of Pagedale, Missouri · filed 1967-01-18

Jurisdiction is claimed by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), and Constitutional provisions, including the fourteenth amendment. … Plaintiff’s rambling charges of unconstitutional ordinances seem to be no more than that — rambling charges. No concrete fact basis is alleged. We agree with the decision of Judge Regan in a prior and almost identical Wallach action, No. 66 C 238(3), that the mere assertion of invalidity is not sufficient to obtain federal non-diversity jurisdiction.

A complaint can present a substantial federal question sufficient for § 1331 jurisdiction through its pleaded facts even if it does not enumerate every constitutional violation those facts support.

State of Georgia v. City of Chattanooga, Tennessee · filed 1969-02-06(a)

The complaint stated facts indicating that there was a substantial federal question in the case sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the District Court even though it did not specifically enumerate all of the constitutional violations which the facts justified.

A good-faith constitutional claim that could succeed under one construction of the Constitution presents a substantial federal question under section 1331.

Moylan v. Laird · filed 1969-10-20

When a plaintiff in good faith asserts a right which is predicated upon the provisions of the United States Constitution, and when that right may well be recognized if the Constitution is given a certain construction, then there is a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the alleged constitutional question lacks necessary substance.

Penney v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CHERRY HILL, STATE OF NJ · filed 1970-05-01

After careful consideration, we have reached the conclusion that this Court lacks jurisdiction for want of a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction when asserted constitutional claims present no substantial federal question.

Alkire v. Cashman · filed 1972-10-11

Accordingly, we hold that no substantial federal constitutional question is presented and the convocation of a three-judge court is not mandated. See, In re Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933); California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252, 58 S.Ct. 865, 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1938); Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. New Left Education Project, 404 U.S. 541, 92 S.Ct. 652, 30 L.Ed.2d 697 (1972). We further hold that temporary injunctive relief is inappropriate and that the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction when a plaintiff raises a substantial constitutional challenge to a state law, even if the court ultimately resolves the case on a dispositive federal statutory ground.

Shirley v. Lavine · filed 1973-09-26

Plaintiffs, invoking our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), (4) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, have raised a substantial question with respect to the constitutionality of New York Social Services Law § 101-a, as amended, which warranted the convening of a three-judge court. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 312 n. 3, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968). However, in view of the fact that plaintiffs also raise an issue as to whether § 101-a violates the Supremacy Clause, which we believe to be dispositive of the ease, our decision follows the Supreme Court’s repeated direction that in such a ease we should adjudicate the statutory claim rather than indulge in a constitutional ruling.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a purported constitutional claim that involves no federally protected right.

Coleman v. Tennessee Valley Trades & Labor Council · filed 1975-03-05(a)

The alleged constitutional claim against the Council involves no “federally protected” right and is, therefore, insufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when a complaint invoking substantive constitutional rights fails to allege any violation of a federally protected right.

Dixon v. Pennsylvania Crime Commission · filed 1975-03-27

Furthermore, to the extent that the complaint seeks to posit jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis of violations of substantive Constitutional rights, it fails to allege the violation of any such rights. ... In sum, plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint failing to allege the violation of any federally protected right, the motion to amend must be denied.

Conclusory references to constitutional amendments do not present a substantial constitutional issue capable of supporting Section 1331(a) jurisdiction.

Potts v. Louis R. Bruce, Commissioner of Indian Affairs · filed 1976-04-21(a)

It is apparent that such vague references to certain amendments are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue. ... Thus here as in the cited case, there was no substance to the allegations of constitutional issues to support an action grounded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) or any other basis.

An irrelevant constitutional provision cannot support Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Sullivan Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. OF STATE OF ILLINOIS · filed 1976-09-27

Obviously, Article VII has no relevancy to the plaintiff’s claims and cannot support jurisdiction under Section 1331. Therefore, the plaintiff’s complaint in so far as it purports to state a claim under Article VII is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when a constitutional challenge to a mandatory-retirement policy fails to raise a substantial federal question.

Klain v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 1977-07-18

we also conclude that the claims brought in this court concerning the constitutionality of Penn State’s mandatory retirement policy do not raise a substantial federal question within our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A substantial Fourteenth Amendment claim against a municipality supports Section 1331 jurisdiction even when the court may avoid deciding the constitutional cause of action by resolving pendent state claims.

Lopez v. White · filed 1977-10-19

Plaintiffs’ allegation that they have suffered damages resulting from the City of Philadelphia’s violations of the fourteenth amendment constitutes a substantial federal constitutional claim. ... That being so, this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since this court has jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim against the city, it may exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state claims made against the city.

Section 1331 cannot support jurisdiction over a due process claim when the plaintiff lacks a federally protected property interest and therefore alleges no claim of constitutional dimension.

Mee v. Becker · filed 1978-07-19

It could be argued that there is a direct right of action under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although it appears that plaintiff was never on the list, the Court holds that plaintiff would have had no federally protected property interest in remaining on the list. Thus, he has not stated a due process claim that rises to a constitutional dimension sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction when a complaint states a cognizable federal constitutional or statutory claim.

Gilbreath v. EAST ARK. PLANNING & DEVEL. DIST. · filed 1979-05-24(a)

The plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint state a claim for relief cognizable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) & (4). Accordingly, the court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and the parties pursuant to the aforementioned statutory provisions.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a federal official when a constitutional challenge is sufficiently substantial under the Hagans standard.

Hark v. Dragon · filed 1979-10-26(a)

Preliminarily, we agree with Judge Coffrin's conclusions that the district court had jurisdiction over defendant Marshall under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and over the state defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), since the claim that Vermont's durational employment policies deprived plaintiffs of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process was sufficiently substantial under the criteria of Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974).

Section 1331(a) does not supply jurisdiction when a complaint alleging only a state official’s negligence fails to present a substantial federal constitutional question.

Seldon v. Goodman · filed 1980-02-06(a)

Consequently, the defendant Goodman breached no constitutional duty owed to the plaintiff. ... The Clerk of the Court is directed to prepare and enter a Judgment dismissing the complaint, with prejudice, for want of a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over substantial federal constitutional and civil-rights claims and supports pendent jurisdiction over a related state-law issue.

Associated General Contractors of California v. San Francisco Unified School District · filed 1980-04-25

Thus 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provided jurisdiction over the federal claims. The district court also had pendent jurisdiction over the state-law question whether the Board had authority under state law to adopt and enforce its affirmative action policy.

Section 1331 presents a substantial federal question when a municipal business regulation is challenged as void, irrational, or violative of substantive constitutional rights.

Aladdin's Castle, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. The City of Mesquite, Cross-Appellant · filed 1980-11-17

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... Murphy does not say that a federal question is not presented if a city decides to regulate by void laws, irrational laws or laws violative of substantive constitutional rights such as due process or taking.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an isolated common-law tort merely because the plaintiff labels the official conduct a constitutional violation; the claim must present a substantial federal question.

Harper v. McDonald · filed 1981-04-24

The core concern here simply is whether this complaint raises a sufficiently substantial federal question so that the Court has jurisdiction under section 1331, or whether it is primarily a common law false arrest claim that under all the circumstances must be heard in the local courts. The Court is convinced that it is the latter.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when the Supreme Court has already dismissed the same constitutional issues for want of a substantial federal question.

Prettyman v. STATE OF NEB., COUNTY OF CASS · filed 1982-04-15

Accordingly, this Court is bound to follow the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in that case and hold that the issues raised by plaintiffs do not present a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a purported constitutional privacy claim when the plaintiff asserts no right arising under the Constitution.

Brown v. Duff Truck Lines, Inc. · filed 1983-01-26

Assuming, ... that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 had been advanced as a predicate for jurisdiction, resort to that statute would not be proper in view of the fact that Plaintiffs have asserted no right arising under the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when a complaint presents no federal question because the alleged conduct was not governmental action violating constitutional rights.

National Conservative Political Action Committee v. Kennedy · filed 1983-05-06

As such, this count can be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction in that no federal question is presented. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.