28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction can be displaced by a statutory scheme that channels covered claims through administrative review.

Rydie v. Biden · filed 2022-04-19

Generally, “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. But Congress may divest district courts of their jurisdiction. ... Considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that—via the CSRA—Congress divested the district court of jurisdiction to hear Rydie and Fleming’s claims.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to review discretionary agency action when the plaintiff lacks an interest protected by the relevant federal statute.

Pullman Incorporated v. Volpe · filed 1971-12-14(a)

Thus, there is no “federal question” jurisdiction in this matter. The Secretary’s actions which plaintiff claims are subject to judicial review were within the discretion given by Congress and are not reviewable. Plaintiff has no standing because the interest which it represents is not within the zone of interests protected by relevant statute.

Section 1331 does not permit one federal district court to conduct a horizontal appeal reviewing orders of another federal district court or court of appeals.

Baier v. Parker · filed 1981-09-24

... judgment and injunction, it is clear that plaintiffs have filed a horizontal appeal to have this Court review a decision rendered by Judge Parker in the East Baton Rouge Parish school desegregation case and a decision rendered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which has previously denied plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief. ... For reasons which follow, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ suit was improperly filed with this Court and must be dismissed.

Section 1331 permits review of a Medicare Part B regulation governing the overall reimbursement mechanism when Congress supplied no administrative review process and did not clearly preclude judicial review.

Michigan Academy of Family Physicians v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 1984-02-23

Courts confronted with this dilemma have held that Congress did not intend to preclude federal jurisdiction over such causes. ... we conclude that the district court correctly found federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to render a decision in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction to review a Medicare fiscal intermediary’s refusal to reopen cost reports when the provider followed the Secretary’s directed procedure and otherwise would lose judicial review.

Memorial Hospital v. Sullivan · filed 1991-12-09

Upon careful review, the Court finds that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361, it does have jurisdiction to review the intermediary’s refusal to reopen. ... When such bureaucratic red tape strangles a provider’s right to judicial review, the Court may invoke its federal question jurisdiction and mandamus power.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a claim enforcing federal statutory rights when an agency erroneously blocks access to the prescribed administrative process.

Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad · filed 1992-03-27

Thus, it was permissible for them to pursue their claim against CSX in the federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to review Departmental Appeals Board decisions concerning penalties for state child support enforcement programs.

Ohio, Department of Human Services v. Sullivan · filed 1992-03-31

Plaintiff asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and seeks review of the Board’s decision under 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. ... This Court concludes that it does have jurisdiction and that plaintiff is entitled to judicial review of the decision of the Board under 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an alleged fraudulent transfer by private parties merely because the claimant invokes a constitutional property right and says it exhausted state remedies.

Total Television Entertainment Corp. v. Chestnut Hill Village Associates · filed 1992-12-30

In sum, I conclude that plaintiff has failed to state a basis for federal court jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 under its theory that defendants have deprived it of property without just compensation, and that it has exhausted all of its state court remedies.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction to review agency action, subject to ordinary jurisdictional and justiciability requirements.

Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc. · filed 1993-06-18

To be sure, a statutory source of jurisdiction is not lacking, since 28 U. S. C. § 1331, generally granting federal-question jurisdiction, “confer[s] jurisdiction on federal courts to review agency action.”

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a Title II ADA claim even when the plaintiff has not exhausted administrative remedies.

Tyler v. City of Manhattan · filed 1994-07-07

The court has jurisdiction over this matter under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim seeking review of BIA action under the APA when the asserted federal trust responsibility is disputed.

Vizenor v. Babbitt · filed 1996-04-09

Goodface and Runs After apply here — the Complaints raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not give district courts original jurisdiction over LHWCA claims, which must begin in the Department of Labor and may be reviewed by courts of appeals.

In Re Csx Transportation, Incorporated, Larry W. Shives v. Csx Transportation Incorporated · filed 1998-07-16

While Shives’ LHWCA claim arises under the laws of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it is not an action over which the district courts have original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over federal-law claims when specific statutes assign exclusive review of the underlying agency action to courts of appeals.

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. Strand · filed 1998-11-13

While the nature of the particular claims asserted in this case relate to federal statutes, namely the Telecommunications Act, both the Telecommunications Title, 47 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 402(a), and the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342(a), limit the jurisdiction of the federal district courts as to telecommunications matters through the specific framework Congress has erected for review of telecommunications matters.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a due process challenge to the notice procedure in an administrative forfeiture.

United States v. Derenak · filed 1998-11-23

Because Derenak’s due process argument does not go to the merits of the DEA’s forfeiture decision, but to whether the DEA followed the proper procedure in providing Derenak adequate notice, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to review the DEA’s notice procedure, whether it be based on the Court’s equitable jurisdiction or on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction when a specific statute assigns exclusive review of agency action to a court of appeals.

Luz v. Federal Communications Commission · filed 1999-07-20

Again, however, the general jurisdictional grant in § 1331 does not supersede the specific jurisdictional provision in 47 U.S.C. § 402.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law unless a more specific statute limits federal review.

Gte North, Inc. v. Strand · filed 2000-04-20

Because GTE’s claims arise under federal law, the district court has jurisdiction under § 1331 to decide the case unless GTE’s claims are subject to the limitations on federal review set forth in § 252(e)(6), which we conclude they are not.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction to review a final removal order when IIRIRA expressly strips federal courts of that jurisdiction.

Amado Miranda, an Individual Esperanza Miranda, an Individual v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of Am · filed 2001-02-07

In IIRIRA, however, Congress expressly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review final orders of removal such as Miranda’s. ... We affirm the district court’s holding that it lacked federal question jurisdiction to hear Miranda’s claims under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that Congress reserved for state-court review under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. North Carolina Utilities Commission · filed 2001-02-14

In addition, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 do not operate to confer jurisdiction over cases from which Congress withheld federal jurisdiction in the 1996 Act.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state commission interconnection-agreement disputes when Congress limits federal review to 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6).

Bell Atlantic Maryland, Incorporated v. Worldcom · filed 2001-02-14

Accordingly, we conclude that 28 U.S.C. S 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction over Bell Atlantic's claims in the circumstances of this case where Congress intended that federal jurisdiction be limited to the grant in 47 U.S.C. S 252(e)(6).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to review a claim that, on its face, appears to involve federal law.

Wideman v. State of Colorado · filed 2007-10-01

There is no indication in the record that this claim is part of the underlying state court proceedings and, on its face, this claim appears to involve a matter of federal law that the district court is empowered to review under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 cannot confer federal-question jurisdiction when a specific statute bars judicial review.

Luo v. Keisler · filed 2007-11-14

Finally, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, cannot confer subject matter... because a specific statutory bar on jurisdiction defeats a general grant of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer district court jurisdiction when Congress intended a statutory review scheme to provide the exclusive avenue to judicial review.

Kerr v. Jewell · filed 2016-09-06

Second, although a federal district court can exercise federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that general grant of jurisdiction does not apply where it is fairly discernible that Congress intended a statutory review scheme to provide the exclusive avenue to judicial review.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not allow a district court to bypass a specific statute that assigns exclusive review of an agency order to a court of appeals.

Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n · filed 2018-07-25

On appeal, the Adorers contend that the District Court erred because their RFRA claim raises a federal question, over which the court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We disagree, and hold that a RFRA cause of action, brought by invoking a court’s general federal question jurisdiction, does not abrogate or provide an exception to a specific and exclusive jurisdictional provision prescribing a particular procedure for judicial review of an agency’s action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims governed by the exclusive review scheme for removal proceedings in 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Valle v. US Department of Homeland Security · filed 2019-12-27

First, the court agrees and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Congress intended for 8 U.S.C. § 1252, to be an alternative statutory scheme for administrative and judicial review. Thus, the general rule outlined in 28 U.S.C § 1331 concerning federal jurisdiction is inapplicable, and the court does not have jurisdiction under that provision.

Section 1331 does not confer district-court jurisdiction over claims that the INA channels to judicial review of removal proceedings.

Rosales v. Barr · filed 2020-03-30

However, as explained below, the judicial review provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) foreclose jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1331 and 1361 and deprive this Court of jurisdiction over Petitioners’ case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal questions, but Congress may limit that jurisdiction through an alternative scheme for administrative and judicial review.

M.M v. v. Barr · filed 2020-04-27

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.” But Congress may curtail that grant of jurisdiction “by establishing an alternative statutory scheme for administrative and judicial review.” ... Thus, the Court finds that § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iv) limits subject matter jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Social Security Act when 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) channels judicial review through § 405(g).

Bailey v. Azar · filed 2020-07-22

The second provision “provides that § 405(g), to the exclusion of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising under’ the [] Act.”

Section 1331 does not give a district court authority to review another district judge’s denial of compassionate release or to grant early release or a sentence reduction in a Bivens action.

Van Deurzen v. Sproul · filed 2020-09-02

As for Count 1, the Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s appeal of Judge Rosenberg’s decision to deny him compassionate release under § 1331 or Bivens. This Court also lacks authority to grant a request for early release or a sentence reduction pursuant to § 1331 or Bivens.

Section 1331 does not expand district court review of NLRB action beyond the limits imposed by the NLRA’s specific review provisions.

National Labor Relations Board v. California Horse Racing Board, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Lo · filed 1991-08-06

The Union and the CHRB argue that the scope of the district court’s Nash-Finch jurisdiction is determined by the broad grant of power to district courts to entertain cases "arising under” statutes regulating commerce, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, or "arising under” federal law generally, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... With all respect, we disagree with that decision. ... Section 10 of the NLRA thus establishes, by its very existence, limits upon the district court’s power of review here.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to consider enforcement of IRS administrative summonses under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602 and 7604.

United States v. Henderson · filed 2006-12-11

Both of these statutes are federal laws that the district court has jurisdiction to consider under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over statutory and constitutional challenges to INS procedures when IRCA’s judicial-review provisions do not bar the collateral challenge.

Perales v. Thornburgh · filed 1992-06-24

Federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would ordinarily cover the statutory and constitutional claims before us. ... In sum, we hold that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255a(f)(1)-(4) do not bar federal courts from reviewing the present action.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal statutory and constitutional challenges to INS legalization procedures when IRCA’s limits on review of individual application denials do not apply.

Perales ex rel. New York State Department of Social Services v. Thornburgh · filed 1992-06-24

Federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would ordinarily cover the statutory and constitutional claims before us. ... In sum, we hold that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255a(f)(l)-(4) do not bar federal courts from reviewing the present action.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal question jurisdiction over collateral challenges to INS regulations governing Special Agricultural Worker applications when the challenge does not seek review of an individual status denial.

Rahim v. McNary · filed 1993-07-27

Accordingly, we conclude that we have general federal question jurisdiction over this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331's jurisdictional amount requirement does not bar a federal statutory claim heard under pendent jurisdiction with a substantial constitutional claim.

Almenares v. Wyman · filed 1972-02-22(a)

We thus reach the question whether the district court properly held the statutory claim to be "pendent" 10 to the constitutional claim so as to be cognizable irrespective of the requirement of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 concerning jurisdictional amount. ... Given this, there is no doubt that the record plaintiffs and intervenors should have been allowed to litigate their own statutory claims against the named defendants irrespective of judisdictional amount.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is unaffected by the citizenship of parties joined to the action.

EARLE REFINING, LLC v. NEW VACUUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC · filed 2024-05-29

Indeed, the Court finds that joining PAI-NV and PRT in this action would not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. This case arises under federal patent law at 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. Thus, the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well as the Court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 “of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents... .” As a result, the parties’ citizenship is inapposite, and joinder of PAI-NV and PRT would have no effect on the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not require diversity of the parties for federal-question jurisdiction.

Louisiana Fair Housing Action Center, Inc. v. Plantation Management Company, LLC · filed 2022-03-02

Federal question jurisdiction does not require diversity of the parties.

Section 1331 provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over a RICO claim even if diversity jurisdiction over a related accounting claim is lost.

Karam v. Meissner · filed 2004-04-08

Karam contends that the district court erred because, even if Frog Leap were joined and diversity among the parties destroyed, an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists as to his RICO claim—specifically, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... We agree. The district court’s failure to rule on Karam’s RICO claim is unexplained and, contrary to its ruling, is not supported by its dismissal of the accounting claim.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal claim is not lost when a necessary party is joined, because it does not depend on diversity of citizenship.

Ramco-Gershenson Properties L.P. v. Hoover Annex Group LLC · filed 2005-06-14

Given that this Court’s federal question jurisdiction gives this Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs cause of action, URS’s presence would not eliminate federal question jurisdiction as jurisdiction under this section does not rely on diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges claims under §§ 1983 and 1985, regardless of whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Lapina v. State of Hawaii · filed 2021-01-19

However, whether diversity jurisdiction exists is irrelevant because Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleged § 1983 and § 1985 claims, as does her current Second Amended Complaint, and therefore federal question jurisdiction exists. 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 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when claims arise under federal law, even if the complaint identifies diversity as its jurisdictional basis.

MAZZA v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION · filed 2021-02-16

Section 1331 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.” Given that approximately half of Plaintiffs’ claims arise under a variety of federal laws (e.g., the Truth in Lending Act, the National Bank Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, etc.), the Court will construe this as a federal question case and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and later assertions fail to establish a federal basis for the action.

Carter v. Sheen · filed 2020-08-10

First, the Response does not demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Response did not establish that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action.

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

Glickstein v. Johnson · filed 2020-08-11

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and he fails to assert any facts suggesting that he can state any federal claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Terrell v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. · filed 2020-08-12

First, the Amended Complaint asserts a claim under the FDCPA, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 316–18, and it is clear that claims arising under the FDCPA, a federal statute, “are matters over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction.” Hardy v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 150, 156 (D.D.C. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts indicating a colorable federal claim.

Hall v. Townsend · filed 2020-08-24

In short, Hall has not alleged any facts indicating that there are colorable federal claims against Townsend, a private individual. His allegations therefore do not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that presents no federal question on its face.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Hale · filed 2020-09-03

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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a pretermination due process claim when the plaintiff fails to show facts supporting the alleged denial after a factual jurisdictional challenge.

Whitener v. St. Charles Parish · filed 2020-09-08

Plaintiff’s own version of pre-termination events show compliance with pre-termination due process rights, the basis for jurisdiction. Availability of federal court relief on that basis has not been shown.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cannot allege a federal violation or a substantial federal issue.

O'Neal v. Albertson · filed 2020-09-10

Accordingly, I find that O’Neal does not and cannot allege a federal violation that would give this court subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint raises a federal question.

Smith v. Leon · filed 2020-09-15

Accordingly, a plaintiff may file a case in federal district court only if there is “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where plaintiff’s complaint raises no federal questions, (see Compl. (DE 16) at 2-3), the court must determine if it has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts supporting its asserted federal claims.

Zasadny v. Weil · filed 2020-09-21

Zasadny alleges no facts that would indicate that Weil or the Riverwest Business Association acted under color of state law. Thus, jurisdiction is not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint expressly pleads a claim based on duties created by a federal regulation.

BAKER v. LINCOLN PARK BANCORP · filed 2020-09-22

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, federal law forms the core of the claim he sets forth in the Third Count of the Complaint. The claim alleges that Defendants are liable for Baker’s failure to receive certain payments under the Separation Agreement as a result of their breach of duties created and imposed by a federal regulation.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice action that raises no federal question.

Emogene R. Brown v. Shalkh · filed 2020-09-29

Brown’s action for medical malpractice does not involve a federal question, see id. § 1331, and her allegation that she and the doctor reside in Mobile, Alabama, defeats jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, see id. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires more than merely naming a federal treaty in a complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Simanov v. Press Agencies: GuamPDN · filed 2020-09-30

While the Complaint references the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the American Convention on Human Rights, id. at 3, mere recitation of these treaties is insufficient to meet the Plaintiff’s burden to establish that federal question jurisdiction does in fact exist.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state and local law claims.

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY v. THE CRACKED EGG, LLC · filed 2020-10-07

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that “it is clear on the face of the Complaint that The County has not alleged any federal claims and that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction only when the complaint raises a federal question.

Sears v. Warren · filed 2020-10-13

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff does not raise any federal question, and has not alleged sufficient facts to satisfy his burden to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claims.

ESPINAL v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC · filed 2020-10-14

Section 1331, which pertains to federal question jurisdiction, is not raised in the SAC; the SAC asserts no federal claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to properly bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Christensen v. Nguyen · filed 2020-10-19

However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under Section 1983 (see discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a vehicle collision damages claim that raises no federal question.

Boone v. Corsino (MAG+) · filed 2020-10-22

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff’s claim does not raise a question of original federal question jurisdiction that extends to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer claim based solely on a federal defense.

Manufacturers Bank v. Gharial · filed 2020-10-26

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. ... There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts do not suggest a federal question.

Baker v. El Ghanayan · filed 2020-10-29

Plaintiff's complaint does not specify the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, (ECF 1 4 I), and the facts alleged do not suggest that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under either its federal question jurisdiction or its diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. For this reason, the Court must deny Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal question for subject matter jurisdiction.

Rossmann v. Austin · filed 2020-10-30

The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint neither established federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction over an alleged federal statutory claim even when disputed facts may defeat the claim on its merits.

Wallace v. Greystone at the Highlands Association · filed 2020-11-16

However, the truth or untruth of the challenged allegations ultimately speak to the merits of the case rather than jurisdiction. It is therefore inappropriate for the Court to undertake extensive factual review in deciding the Greystone Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion. Plaintiffs have provided allegations sufficient to confer the Court jurisdiction to hear their purported FHAA claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint invoking § 1983 when the alleged conduct does not support an inference that the defendant acted under color of law.

Stewart Jr. v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. · filed 2020-11-19

Here, Stewart has not provided any facts giving rise to an inference that the Boy Scouts of America acted under color of law when the alleged conduct occurred. Therefore, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a properly alleged federal question; an asserted basis of “Attempted Murder” without grounding in the United States Code does not establish one.

Stewart v. Fairview Medical Group · filed 2020-11-24

Stewart has failed to properly allege federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, his selected basis for federal question jurisdiction, “Attempted Murder,” has no grounding in United States Code.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over nonfederal causes of action.

Mustafanos v. Ford · filed 2020-11-30

As these causes of action are not federal, the Court ... lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a purported § 1983 claim against private actors presents no federal question.

Brockington v. Lowe's Home Improvement · filed 2020-11-30

Although Plaintiff alleges deprivations of her constitutional rights and invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see ECF No. 11 at p. 7, her amended complaint does not present a federal question because § 1983 “only provides relief for deprivations of constitutional rights by state actors.” Barrett v. PAE Gov’t Servs., Inc., 975 F.3d 416, 434 (4th Cir. 2020) (emphasis added); see Cox v. Duke Energy Inc., 876 F.3d 625, 632 (4th Cir. 2017) (“‘[M]erely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful,’ is excluded from the reach of § 1983.” (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999))).

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

SHELTON v. FLOYD · filed 2020-12-03

Here, there is no allegation of conduct which could support the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims for negligence, fraud, and defamation when they raise no federal question.

BROWN v. B&T BULK, LLC · filed 2020-12-09

However, negligence, fraud, and defamation are state law claims and thus raise no federal question.

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

Davis v. Citizens Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-12-09

Plaintiffs seek to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but they fail to allege any facts suggesting that they can assert a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a claim labeled as arising under a federal act does not itself present a federal question.

Holbein v. Baxter Chrysler Jeep, Inc. · filed 2020-12-30

The panel found Holbein’s first cause of action did not present a federal question, see id. at 936, leaving diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the sole potential basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, see id. at 934. ... Because TAW Enterprises did not ask us to reconsider the panel’s holding regarding federal-question jurisdiction, we reinstate that portion of the panel opinion.

Section 1331 requires an articulated federal legal basis for a claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

GRANT v. WILLIAMS · filed 2021-01-08

Plaintiff does not articulate what federal laws Williams allegedly violated to establish subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(PC) Grubbs v. Bank Of America · filed 2021-01-25

The undersigned has already determined that there is no federal question jurisdiction in the present suit because plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction over an action alleging federal claims, supporting denial of a motion to remand the action to state court.

Fairillia Turner v. the Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2021-01-26

The district court properly denied Turner’s motion to remand her action to state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Barefield v. HSBC Holdings, Plc · filed 2021-01-28

The district court properly denied Barefield’s May 15, 2018 motion to remand the action to state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under § 1331, a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction under § 1332).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal question is immaterial and raised solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Payton v. Touro Infirmary Hospital · filed 2021-01-28

Section 1331 does not apply, however, in cases in which the federal question “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or “is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting a Title VII sexual-orientation discrimination claim.

Tenorio v. State of Nevada, Department of Taxation · filed 2021-02-02

Plaintiff’s Complaint unmistakably raises a federal claim, and the Court therefore denies the Motion to Remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint fails to properly bring its asserted federal civil rights claim.

Clark v. McCormick · filed 2021-02-05

However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under Section 1983 (see discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations do not suggest a federal claim.

Marshall v. Bright · filed 2021-02-17

Plaintiff’s assertions concerning Bright do not suggest the existence of a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal question for district courts to have federal-question jurisdiction.

Holscher v. Ken Hess · filed 2021-02-24

The district court properly dismissed Holscher’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Holscher failed to allege a federal question or meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case when the removing party fails to establish that the complaint raises a federal question.

Callais v. Dean Morris, L.L.C. · filed 2021-03-01

Finding that Dean Morris’s notice of removal did not explain adequately how Callais’s petition alleges a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim, this Court ordered Dean Morris to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed due to the absence of federal question subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Instead of showing cause establishing federal question subject-matter jurisdiction, Dean Morris filed a stipulation consenting to remand. ... Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, ... IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a violation of landlord-tenant law.

Miller v. Elvagy · filed 2021-03-11

Plaintiff alleges only a violation of “Landlord/Tenant Law,” which is a not a federal question and therefore not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction.

A party invoking § 1331 must carry the burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

St. Germain v. DaimlerChrylser Service Contracts, Inc. · filed 2021-03-18

The Court therefore concludes that FCA has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when all claims arise under state or common law.

Mayes v. Women's Health Center of Shelton Connecticut · filed 2021-03-22

As all of Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of state and/or common law, there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Holguin v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo · filed 2021-04-23

Thus, a case arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is clearly one arising under federal law for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state action when the plaintiff’s action presents no federal question.

Daugherty v. Hefflin · filed 2021-04-23

Moreover, Defendant does not argue that Plaintiff’s state action presents a federal question, and Defendant provides no other grounds for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint neither asserts a federal question nor alleges a basis for one.

DIMANCHE v. LA BRISE GENERAL CONTRACTOR · filed 2021-04-23

Plaintiff does not assert federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does his Complaint reflect any basis for such jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction at this stage when the plaintiff has failed to properly bring a § 1983 claim.

Dalke v. Metro Police Department · filed 2021-04-26

However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly bring a claim under Section 1983 (see discussion below), federal question jurisdiction does not exist at this time.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a common-law defamation complaint.

Inko-Tariah v. Washington Post · filed 2021-04-27

Here, the complaint is one for defamation, which is a common law tort, 1 and thus fails to present any federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint presents a federal question, without requiring the defendant to invoke that jurisdiction.

Lacey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · filed 2021-04-28

28 U.S.C. § 1331 grants federal district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims“arising under” federal law. Thus, the Court clearly possesses subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s Complaint presents questions of federal law. Plaintiff further fails to offer any caselaw holding that a Defendant must invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction before appearing in a case. It is to Plaintiff’s Complaint that the Court looks to determine its subject matter jurisdiction not Defendant’s invocation of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant’s failure to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction does not deprive the Court of the same nor does it prohibit Defendant’s counsel from appearing before the Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims involved in an unlawful detainer action.

Richmond Housing Authority v. Clay · filed 2021-04-30

Even construing these as claims involved in the underlying unlawful detainer action, these claims do not confer a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal issue raised in a defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lindsey v. Heinz · filed 2021-05-07

Although Mr. Heinz’s Notice of Removal refers to provisions of the United States Constitution and the Uniform Commercial Code, federal causes of action raised in defenses to a complaint are not adequate to establish federal question jurisdiction and do not provide a proper basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the action presents no federal question, even if the plaintiff invokes the section.

Dubuisson v. Brigham & Women's Hospital · filed 2021-06-02

Although Dubuisson purports to be proceeding under § 1331, see Compl. Section II (checked box for “Federal Jurisdiction”), the Court can discern no federal question presented in this action.

Section 1331 requires only one claim presenting a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction over an action.

Gagliolo v. Kaweah Manor, Inc. · filed 2021-06-08

Finally, federal question jurisdiction only requires one claim to be identified as a federal question, and the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over sufficiently related claims.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, nonfrivolous federal question to be a direct element of the plaintiff’s claim for federal question jurisdiction.

Powell v. Maryland Division of Correction · filed 2021-06-14

For the court to retain federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must be a direct element in the plaintiff’s claim and must be substantial and not plainly frivolous.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims against a defendant when the plaintiff states no federal statutory claim against that defendant.

Aung v. Prettenhofer · filed 2021-06-16

There is no federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not stated a claim against Hanover under any federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over apartment habitability claims grounded in state or local law.

Nelson v. Friedman · filed 2021-06-17

Specifically, plaintiffs’ allegations about the habitability of the apartment may suggest state law claims for negligence or violations of state or city housing laws, but they do not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a Texas breach-of-contract claim with no federal question on its face.

Black v. Iron Horse Security & Investigations, LLC · filed 2021-06-30

One basis for subject matter jurisdiction in a federal district court is “federal question” jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In this suit, Black brings a claim for breach of contract, which is a claim based on Texas law. There is no federal question on the face of Black’s pleadings that can serve as the basis for jurisdiction in this Court.

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction when claims under § 1983, the ADA, and the ADEA remain after Rehabilitation Act claims are dismissed.

SKELTON v. BOROUGH OF EAST GREENVILLE · filed 2021-06-30

The Court rejects this argument. Notwithstanding the dismissal of plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claims, this action includes claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, and ADEA, which provide subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on an alleged violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Salters v. Greenwood County Circuit Court · filed 2021-06-30

The magistrate judge then properly determined that neither Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor any alleged violation thereof, are sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction over an action asserting a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Terrell v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. · filed 2021-07-02

At the time of removal, this Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff asserted a federal claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and also on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, see Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 9–19; Mem. Op., ECF No. 15, at 4.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint omits the federal claims previously pleaded.

Bloom Master Fund I LLC v. Capna Intellectual Incorporated · filed 2021-07-02

The Amended Complaint omits the prior version’s federal claims, and Plaintiff concedes the Court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a federal basis for jurisdiction; a complaint alleging no viable federal rights claim and identifying no other federal basis fails to establish it.

Kirsh v. Rodeway Inn Hotel and Suites · filed 2021-07-09

As has been discussed, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for any violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights, under Section 1983. Plaintiff does not identify any other basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a complaint with no discernible federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Fishback v. Warren County Fiscal Court/Judge Executive Mike Buchannon · filed 2021-07-13

Plaintiff fails to cite to any federal statute, federal treaty, and/or provision of the United States Constitution which would provide this Court with federal-question jurisdiction, and the Court can no discern no allegation which would form the basis of a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim; allegations of a highway collision and related damages alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

THOMAS v. C.R. ENGLAND INC. · filed 2021-07-29

Without more, these allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award when the underlying claims are only for breach of contract and raise no federal issue.

Nelson v. Jackson · filed 2021-08-02

Thus, “[t]he district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” ... The underlying claims were for breach of contract, not anything federal in nature, and Nelson’s amended petition reflects that the parties were all citizens of or domiciled in Colorado, meaning diversity is lacking.

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

VIOLETTE v. PETRECA · filed 2021-08-05

Plaintiff seeks to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Pursuant to § 1331, federal 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. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would support a federal question claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal APA and ultra vires claims even when those claims may fail on the merits.

Afghan Yar International Construction Company Limited v. US Department of State · filed 2021-08-06

While these claims may well be flawed on the merits, they are still federal claims over which the Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction when a federal question is presented, and the plaintiff must plead facts establishing that basis for jurisdiction.

Rushing v. City of Cape Giradeau · filed 2021-08-10

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff has neither specified the basis of federal court jurisdiction nor pled sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to state a claim involving a federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lueken v. Rich · filed 2021-08-11

Specifically, she did not state a claim involving a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and she did not plead Rich’s citizenship to establish diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state child-neglect and temporary-custody proceeding.

Department of Children, Youth and Families v. Vilbon · filed 2021-08-18

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “district courts shall have jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The underlying state case, the case that has been removed to this Court, is not one over which federal district courts have jurisdiction. The case instead arose as a petition in the Rhode Island Family Court to find that the defendant’s child was neglected and granting temporary custody to the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth, and Families (“DCYF”).

Section 1331 requires a federal question apparent from the complaint to give a district court federal-question jurisdiction.

Fishback v. Warren County Fiscal Court/Judge-Executive Mike Buchannon · filed 2021-08-30

Plaintiff fails to cite to any federal statute, federal treaty, and/or provision of the United States Constitution which would provide this Court with federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Acosta v. Perez · filed 2021-09-01

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this claim under ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim alleging perjury in federal court.

Mourning v. Batemen · filed 2021-09-07

Perjury in federal court is not a federal question, and perjury itself in California is a crime, not the basis for a civil lawsuit.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law but does not give a district court jurisdiction to enforce a criminal statute in a private civil suit.

BEY v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2023-06-27

This Court’s jurisdiction with respect to federal questions is limited to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (emphasis added). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 242 in Plaintiff’s civil suit against Defendants, it does not have jurisdiction to do so.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a federal constitutional claim, even if that claim may ultimately fail on the merits.

Bowen v. Keys · filed 2020-07-23

While Bowen may not ultimately succeed on her § 1983 claim alleging violation of her substantive-due-process rights, her allegations provide a federal question that implicates the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that attorneys engaged in criminal activity when those claims do not arise under federal law or the Constitution.

Mehmeti v. Wotorson · filed 2020-07-23

Because Plaintiff’s claims that the attorneys engaged in criminal activity do not arise under federal law or the Constitution, federal question jurisdiction does not lie over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision supporting its claims and none is discernible from its allegations.

Willis v. Shumate · filed 2020-07-27

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no federal statutes or United States Constitutional provisions in support of his claims, and the Court cannot discern any from the facts alleged. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a claim does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Graham v. Padda · filed 2020-08-06

There is no indication that this matter arises under under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts give rise to no federal statutory or constitutional claim.

Cornell v. Fox News Network · filed 2020-08-06

These factual allegations do not give rise to any federal statutory or constitutional provision that would invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes no reference to the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 2020-08-11

Although Plaintiff alleges that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint is void of any reference to the United States Constitution, federal law, or treaty. (Id.) As a result, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that states no claim under the Constitution or federal law.

Souvannasot v. Bhatt · filed 2020-08-19

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law and, therefore, Plaintiff does not demonstrate federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition seeking relief under state law that alleges no violation of federal or constitutional rights.

Ferguson v. Warden · filed 2020-09-03

As a federal district court, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or for claims where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Ferguson, the sole party in this case, resides in the State of Indiana. Further, the petition seeks relief under State law and contains no indication of any violation of his constitutional or federal rights. As a result, it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Ferguson cannot proceed on this petition in this court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a civil action arises under federal law or the Constitution; a complaint alleging no federal violation does not qualify.

Krueger v. Hill · filed 2020-09-08

One type of case that can be heard in federal court is a case that presents a “federal question,” which is a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, his complaint contains no hint of any violation of federal law or the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under federal law or the Constitution; a complaint alleging only state-law medical malpractice does not qualify.

Krueger v. Divine Savior Hospital · filed 2020-09-08

One type of case that can be heard in federal court is a case that presents a “federal question,” which is a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... However, his complaint contains no hint of any violation of federal law or the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges no violation of a federal statute or constitutional provision.

Cornell v. Fox News Network · filed 2020-09-22

The Magistrate Judge further explains that the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the proposed amended complaint against Defendants, because it fails to allege a violation of any federal statutory or constitutional provision. ... Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned has reviewed the matter de novo and finds the analysis contained within the R&R to be well-reasoned and correct. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R in its entirety.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over a § 1983 action seeking relief for violations of federal constitutional rights.

CHARLES v. CASTRO · filed 2020-09-24

As an Article III court, this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as per 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff begins his lawsuit by stating it is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and that the “Eastern District of Texarkana [sic]” is an appropriate venue. Docket No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff’s original complaint thus makes clear that this Court has jurisdiction over his claims.

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

Jenkins v. New West Sports Medicine · filed 2020-10-02

Jenkins has failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the court has subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when an action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Durham v. Arnold · filed 2020-10-07

As currently plead, the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises a claim under the Constitution or federal law.

Moss v. Stanley · filed 2020-10-16

If a plaintiff’s complaint raises a federal question, then this Court may have subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, Plaintiff does not state a violation of the United States Constitution or any federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statutory or constitutional basis for a plausible claim.

Holloway v. Metro Bus · filed 2020-10-20

The court cannot identify any federal statutory or constitutional provision that would give rise to plausible claim for relief against any named defendant or provide subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a damages claim that does not arise under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Perez v. Moore · filed 2020-10-22

Plaintiff's damage claim does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a bare allegation of violated constitutional rights fails to identify a federal claim.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. Diaz · filed 2020-10-27

The Defendant has failed to show that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Reading the Defendant’s notice of removal in the light most charitable to the Defendant, it appears the Defendant tried to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction by alleging “violation of constitucion [sic] rights,” but that threadbare allegation is woefully deficient.

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

Christenberry v. White (TV1) · filed 2020-10-29

Section 1331 governs federal-question jurisdiction, which requires a plaintiff to plead a colorable claim that arises under the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes enacted by Congress.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; bare references to civil rights or the First Amendment do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Baker v. El Ghanayan · filed 2020-11-04

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Although Plaintiff refers to his “civil rights” and the “First Amendment” in the affidavit in support of the motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 6), there are no facts in any of Plaintiff’s submissions suggesting a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to articulate a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Robertson v. Jeff. Co. Atty's Office · filed 2020-11-05

The complaint does not articulate a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law; therefore, the plaintiff does not demonstrate federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires allegations that the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

Francia v. New Mexico Workforce Solutions · filed 2020-11-05

Nor is there any properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because there are no allegations that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; defamation and slander claims with no federal statutory, treaty, or constitutional basis do not satisfy it.

Hammond v. Warren · filed 2020-11-06

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a district court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... However, Mr. Hammond’s civil action does not arise under any federal statute, federal treaty, or provision of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that fails to describe a federal constitutional or statutory violation redressable in federal court.

Garner v. Brown · filed 2020-11-10

Because the complaint does not clearly describe a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute that is redressable by a private citizen in federal court, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint fails to describe a violation of the Constitution or a federal statute redressable by a private citizen in federal court.

Garner v. Superstore · filed 2020-11-10

Because the complaint does not clearly describe a violation of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute that is redressable by a private citizen in federal court, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a violation of First Amendment rights.

NOBREGA v. YORK COUNTY SHERIFF · filed 2020-11-16

Here, Plaintiff asserts a federal question, alleging that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The York County Defendants, therefore, have demonstrated that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim and that removal was proper.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint bases a claim on federal constitutional standards.

NOBREGA v. YORK COUNTY · filed 2020-11-30

Defendants, therefore, have demonstrated that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim and that removal was proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a); Mayhew, 64 F. Supp. 3d at 263.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Hovis v. Frisch · filed 2020-12-01

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state contract claims that plead no federal issue and are not completely preempted by the Carmack Amendment.

Quality King Distributers, Inc. v. Celtic International, LLC · filed 2020-12-10

Neither claim explicitly pleads an issue arising under federal law, so neither satisfies the well-pleaded complaint rule. ... This court therefore holds that the Carmack Amendment does not preempt claims against a party acting solely as a broker as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 13102(2). For the reasons stated, this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over claims involving federal law or the Constitution; a complaint stating no such claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

McCloud v. Blackmon · filed 2020-12-11

Further, there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. A federal court can decide cases involving violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §1331, or cases between citizens of different states in some circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although McCloud checked the box for 28 U.S.C. § 1332 under “Jurisdiction” on the complaint form, he has not stated any federal law or constitutional claim against the defendants.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law; claims alleging no federal statutory or constitutional violation cannot proceed on that basis.

Pendleton, Kenneth v. Madison Kipp Corporation · filed 2020-12-11

Because plaintiff’s allegations as amended still do not implicate any federal statute, and because he does not suggest that defendant is a state actor who violated his constitutional rights, his claims cannot proceed in federal court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over controversies involving questions of federal law; a complaint that alleges no applicable federal statute or constitutional principle does not establish that jurisdiction.

Vasquez v. Building and Standards Commission · filed 2020-12-15

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has federal question jurisdiction over controversies involving questions of federal law. ... Federal question diversity is also lacking because Plaintiff has not alleged an applicable federal statute or constitutional principle to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; an unclear legal basis can prevent the court from determining whether it has federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Spate v. Lake County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-12-16

Federal courts are court of limited jurisdiction, and require either claims arising “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or “complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy over $75,000.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). ... Without more clarity, the court cannot say whether it has the power to hear plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action raising constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Tidwell v. Siddiqui · filed 2020-12-16

The Court finds that the case was properly removed because it raises constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, thus raising a federal question justifying removal.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal statutory or constitutional basis sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Stewart v. Cizek · filed 2020-12-16

He did not, however, identify any federal statute or constitutional right that was purportedly violated (see Doc. 1), nor can the Court readily discern a basis for federal question jurisdiction from his allegations.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; a complaint that identifies no constitutional provision or federal statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Siddiqui v. Lafayette Bank and Trust · filed 2020-12-23

For this Court to have federal question jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff must allege a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But Plaintiff has not identified any constitutional provision or federal statute as a basis for his claim.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a federal statute or constitutional provision supporting that jurisdiction.

Harris v. Miami Police Department · filed 2020-12-29

The failure to specify any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is wholly inadequate, and it is not the Court’s responsibility to guess which federal statute or constitutional provision supports Plaintiff’s position that federal question jurisdiction exists here.