28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify a federal question as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Ischy v. Miles · filed 2003-09-12

Although Ischy suggests that the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, he does not identify a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a plainly insubstantial claim that a land patent was infringed.

Villella v. Hall · filed 2003-12-04

Villella has not alleged that a patented invention has been infringed, see 28 U.S.C. § 1838; 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(a), 271, and his assertion of a “land patent” being infringed is plainly insubstantial.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a civil fraud suit that presents no federal question.

Olson v. Huntley · filed 2003-12-08

...the case did not present a federal question and the amount in controversy was insufficient to meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States.

Robertson v. Meinig · filed 2004-02-10

Robertson does not allege any violations of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States and therefore does not present a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the cited federal provisions are clearly immaterial and invoked solely to obtain jurisdiction, or when claims under them are wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Lazenby v. Lexus of Clear Lake · filed 2004-04-20

After reviewing the briefs and Lazenby’s amended complaint, we have determined that the provisions cited by Lazenby do not supply subject matter jurisdiction because each is “clearly immaterial and is invoked solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Holland/Blue Streak v. Barthelemy, 849 F.2d 987, 989 (5th Cir. 1988). Jurisdiction is also lacking because claims under the provisions cited by Lazenby would be “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Id.

Section 1331 requires an issue of federal law; incorporation of a religious organization alone does not establish a federal cause of action.

Kerr v. Bey · filed 2004-06-09

Further, the fact that the Moorish Science Temple of America is an incorporated entity does not establish a federal cause of action under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that present no federal question.

Mierzwa v. City of Garfield · filed 2005-10-19

The claims against the following defendants either did not present a federal question or were unrelated to the § 1983 claims: Gruber and Colabella; Thomas Mierzwa; Jane Mierzwa; Peterpaul, Clark, and Corcoran, P.C.; Ronald Schwartz, Esq.; Robert Skikhman; Saulius Skikhman; Traci Skikhman; Estate of Telesh; and Valley National Bank. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a personal-injury suit alleging only common-law torts against a private party, without a federal constitutional or statutory claim.

Malarik v. Dinunno Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2005-12-14

Moreover, no federal question is presented by a personal injury lawsuit that alleges only common law torts against a private party, and does not allege a deprivation of federal constitutional rights or the elements of a cause of action under a federal statute.

Section 1331 provides no jurisdiction over a suit that does not implicate a federal question.

Siteworks Contracting Corp. v. Western Surety Co. · filed 2006-11-14

Jurisdiction cannot lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because Marx and Siteworks are both New York corporations; jurisdiction cannot lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the suit does not implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal-law basis independent of the jurisdictional statute; an asserted constitutional violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction without an identified cause of action providing a remedy.

Alberto San, Inc. v. Consejo De Titulares Del Condominio San Alberto · filed 2007-03-13

Because the constitutional provisions relied on by the plaintiff do not provide a remedy for their infringement, and because the plaintiff has failed to identify which statute, other than section 1983, would enable it to bring its purported cause of action, it has failed to establish that this Court has jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Bell-Boston v. Webster-Chapman · filed 2009-02-03

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.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a claim alleging a direct violation of federal law when that law creates a federal cause of action.

International Union of Operati v. Ward · filed 2009-04-16

For purposes of exercising federal jurisdiction under § 1331, such a claim “arises under” federal law if the law in question creates a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when a complaint presents a federal question.

Hester v. Everest College · filed 2009-05-08

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction inasmuch as plaintiff has not pleaded any amount of monetary damages.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Misu v. Suthpin Courthouse · filed 2009-05-26

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed.

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

Kissi v. Morris · filed 2009-09-16

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction when the complaint presents a federal question; a complaint presenting none must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Davis v. Superior Court · filed 2009-10-21

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; a wrongful-discharge complaint that presents none must be dismissed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction.

Goins v. Das · filed 2009-10-30

The complaint, presumably for wrongful discharge, neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff and at least one defendant reside in the same state and no amount in controversy is pleaded.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Richardson v. Holmes · filed 2009-11-06

The one-page complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and no amount in controversy is pleaded.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Brizendine v. Herbold · filed 2009-11-30

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is well below the minimum amount for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Amiri v. Gelman Management Company · filed 2010-01-20

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Bell-Boston v. Jw Marriott Hotel · filed 2010-02-24

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because no amount in controversy is pleaded.

Section 1331 provides district court jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Bell-Boston v. Crime Victims Compensation · filed 2010-02-24

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.

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

Julius v. Saff · filed 2010-03-02

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. ... In any event, the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Howard v. Bell · filed 2010-03-02

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and no amount in controversy pleaded.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a child-support reimbursement claim that presents no federal question.

Floyd v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2010-05-05

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. ... The complaint presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the complaint for federal district court jurisdiction.

Packer v. Geico Insurance Company · filed 2010-06-30

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. ... The complaint does not present a federal question and the amount in controversy is below the statutory minimum required for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Beavers v. Watters · filed 2010-06-30

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. ... Like the previous complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the current complaint presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and one defendant reside in the same state.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Whitaker v. Whitaker · filed 2010-08-20

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is well below the jurisdictional minimum.

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

Settles v. Dc Housing Authority · filed 2010-08-25

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Colbert v. Greyhound · filed 2010-08-25

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is well below the jurisdictional minimum.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Wallace v. County of Franklin County · filed 2010-08-26

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and plaintiff has not pleaded an amount in controversy.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a case presents no federal question.

Theoneste v. Singh-Mann · filed 2010-09-03

The court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the parties are not diverse, the case presents no federal question, and the district court may not review decisions of other courts.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Davis v. the House of Representatives · filed 2010-09-17

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and plaintiff has stated no amount in controversy.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction only when a federal question arises under another source of federal law; invoking the section alone is insufficient.

Little River Band v. National Labor Relations Board · filed 2010-09-20

Section 1331 does not, in and of itself, supply a substantive basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Colbert v. Safeway · filed 2010-10-29

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

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

Royster v. Board of Professional Responsibility · filed 2010-11-02

The Court finds that this complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction as plaintiff has failed to allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Apollo v. Kelly · filed 2010-12-30

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and l332. 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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and one of the defendants are located in the District and the amount in controversy is well below the $75,000 minimum.

Section 1331 provides district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Malone v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2011-02-24

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Speight v. Ward · filed 2011-04-21

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Bush v. Burrichter · filed 2011-05-05

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is well below the statutory minimum. It therefore will be dismissed.

Section 1331 grounds federal-question jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s federal question, so a proposed intervenor who raises no new claims needs no independent jurisdictional basis.

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Geithner · filed 2011-05-09

But in federal-question cases, the identity of the parties is irrelevant and the district court’s jurisdiction is grounded in the federal question(s) raised by the plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... We therefore clarify that the independent jurisdictional grounds requirement does not apply to proposed intervenors in federal-question cases when the proposed intervenor is not raising new claims.

Section 1331 supplies federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Honore-Richardson v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia · filed 2011-05-17

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. ... Because the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction, it will be dismissed.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiffs do not allege a federal question.

Arunga v. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation · filed 2011-07-01

The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because plaintiffs have alleged neither a federal question, nor that there is complete diversity between the parties.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Banks v. Finley Fine Jewlers Company-Seligman and Latz Incorporated and Gimbles · filed 2011-07-27

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and many of the defendants are located in Wisconsin and no amount in controversy is pled.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Old Dominion Reality · filed 2011-08-08

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and some of the defendants reside in the same state.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Norman v. Norman · filed 2011-08-23

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. ... The cryptic complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the plaintiff and most of the defendants reside in the same state.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Valkova v. Valkov · filed 2011-09-08

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.

Vague, unexplained references to civil or human rights are insufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Paul v. Didizian · filed 2011-10-19

Such vague and unexplained references to “civil” and “human” rights are insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Cosby v. Barns · filed 2011-12-19

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,()0().

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Mattox v. Pon's Engineering Construction Company · filed 2012-01-10

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. ... In addition, the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because both parties are based in Wisconsin.

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

Whitt v. Whitt · filed 2012-04-16

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy is well below the statutory minimum.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Pressley v. Fykes · filed 2012-04-30

The instant complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not of diverse citizenship.

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

Julius v. Novor · filed 2012-06-11

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. ... The complaints, lacking any cogent facts, neither present ... a federal question nor provide a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; a § 1983 claim that pleads no action under color of law does not do so.

Ceasar v. Carnigie institute/theater · filed 2012-06-11

The complaint does not present a federal question because § 1983 applies only to "person[ s] who [act], under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia," which is not pleaded here.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Collington v. Department of Human Resources · filed 2012-06-21

The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff and Harris reside in the District.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; a complaint devoid of facts does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Julius v. Arelis · filed 2012-07-31

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. ... The complaint, devoid of facts, presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Tsige v. Pcs-Will · filed 2012-09-21

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.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Potter v. Special Funds Conservation Committee · filed 2012-09-21

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. ... The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction.

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

Johnson v. Va Medical Center · filed 2012-11-16

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. ... the complaint’s allegations do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Robinson-Reeder v. Kearns · filed 2012-12-10

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 $75,00().

Section 1331 requires more than a complaint’s mere mention of “constitutional tort” and “discrimination” to present a federal question.

Bradley v. Castillio · filed 2012-12-11

In any event, the parties’ location in the District defeats a basis for diversity jurisdiction, and plaintiff’s mere mention of "constitutional tort" and "discrimination," Compl. at l, does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, and a complaint that presents no federal question does not establish that jurisdiction.

Fletcher v. Office of Transportation · filed 2012-12-18

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This complaint sets forth no federal question.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for a district court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Braun v. State of Montana · filed 2013-01-25

Assuming without deciding that plaintiff has viable legal claims against defendants, the allegations in the complaint do not present a federal question nor bring this case within the Court's diversity jurisdiction.

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

Rahman v. Esseddiq · filed 2013-02-05

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.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question, and a complaint that fails to do so must be dismissed absent another basis for federal jurisdiction.

Dotson v. Central Funding Corp. · filed 2013-08-02

Since the complaint neither presents a federal question nor pleads the requisite amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction, it must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction to exist.

Bell v. Scripture Cathedral Church · filed 2013-09-13

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.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging no credible facts presenting a federal question.

Bey v. Washington County Sheriff's Office · filed 2013-10-28

As for the remaining defendants, plaintiff has alleged no credible facts to bring the complaint within the court’s "federal question" jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and has ... indeed styled the complaint as a tort action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brown v. Hill · filed 2014-01-30

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.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question and plead facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

Myers v. Myers · filed 2014-03-26

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. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. ... The complaint presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction since both parties reside in the same state.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question and plead facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

Newkirk v. Raspberry · filed 2014-07-11

A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. ... The complaint presents neither a federal question nor a basis for diversity jurisdiction Hence, this case will be dismissed without prejudice A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a complaint that raises no federal question.

Morrison v. Kache · filed 2014-08-08

The district court could not identify the existence of any federal question raised by Morrison’s complaint. ... We agree.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a complaint that presents no federal question.

Brown v. Douglas · filed 2014-10-23

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff 3 claim neither presents a federal question nor involves parties who reside in different states. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint, on its face, poses no federal question.

Okechuku v. Sharp Management · filed 2014-12-19

The Court agrees with the parties that Plaintiff’s complaint, on its face, poses no federal question.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts presenting a federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Taylor v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-02-24

... plaintiff neither invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction nor alleges facts presenting a federal question. Hence, this case will be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint reveals no possible non-frivolous federal question.

Bradley v. Sabree · filed 2015-03-02

She did not allege diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and her complaint reveals no possible non-frivolous federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Inc., 725 F.3d 795, 800 (7th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1298 (2014).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Miller v. Ohio Attorney General · filed 2015-07-21

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.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that is patently insubstantial.

Green v. Obama · filed 2015-07-29

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. ... The complaint is so “patently insubstantial” as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Miller v. New Salem Baptist Church · filed 2015-08-17

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.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Watkins v. Lawsky · filed 2016-02-18

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and l332. 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,()0(). ... The complaint does not present a federal question, and the plaintiff and the defendants reside in New York.

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

Taylor v. Henry · filed 2017-03-10

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.

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

Hubbard v. Roach · filed 2017-06-26

The complaint’s allegations do not present a federal question, and the case cannot proceed under the diversity Sta_tute because plaintiff and the defendants share the Same citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to raise a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Boston Center for Addictive Behaviors · filed 2018-10-10

Here, even if the allegations are accepted as true, the complaint raises no federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim to present a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Fletcher v. Capitol One Bank · filed 2018-11-19

Plaintiff’s claim does not present a federal question under § 1-331, Which leaves diversity jurisdiction as a possibility.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when a cognizable federal question is presented.

Mensah v. Johnson · filed 2019-02-07

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.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; employment allegations that do not implicate a federal employment-discrimination statute do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Pitney Bowes, Incorporated · filed 2019-02-26

Citing 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Jackson purports to invoke only federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But the complaint does not present a federal question under § 1981 or any other federal employment-discrimination statute.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Cureton v. Pepco · filed 2019-04-17

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.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction only when a federal question is presented.

Sharpe v. Fbop · filed 2019-05-01

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.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law slander claim that raises no federal question.

Moore v. Holcomb · filed 2019-07-29

Slander is a type of defamation, which is a State law claim, see Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593, 596–597 (Ind. 2007), and, according to the amended complaint, all parties reside within the State of Indiana. The amended complaint raises no federal questions, and there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship jurisdiction).

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

El Bey v. Akaw · filed 2019-08-08

The complaint is not based on a federal question, and both parties are citizens of the District of Columbia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Ainsworth v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. · filed 2019-08-08

There is no federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is too insubstantial or implausible to present a federal controversy.

(PS) Godfrey v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Department · filed 2019-08-09

The Court concludes that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the substantiality doctrine.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a federal question.

Smith v. Shirey · filed 2019-09-19

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. ... Because the complaint neither presents a federal question nor satisfies the citizenship requirement to proceed in diversity, this case will be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law misdemeanor action that presents no federal question.

(PS) State of California v. El · filed 2019-10-17

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. ... And plaintiff is attempting to remove a state law misdemeanor action that does not involve a federal question. (ECF No. 1 at 15-16.) In this regard, there appears to be no basis for either federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal law or constitutional right at issue.

(PS) Alfaro Buttany v. Barrackas · filed 2019-11-01

There is no federal question jurisdiction available because no federal law or constitutional right is at issue in this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

O'Connor v. Cigna-Healthspring Corp. · filed 2019-11-12

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.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim that does not involve a question of federal law.

GRAHAM v. VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY AND COLLEGE · filed 2019-11-27

In this case, the only possible basis to establish subject-matter jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim does not involve a question of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged federal question is insubstantial and frivolous.

Jones v. Bank of America · filed 2020-02-05

Even liberally construed, any allegations on a federal question here are insubstantial and frivolous.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but does not independently confer jurisdiction without a federal question.

Hawthorne v. Fanning · filed 2020-02-20

Section 1331 constitutes a jurisdictional statute; thus, it does not supply an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction absent a federal question; that is, it merely establishes a district court’s jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes, treaties, or the Constitution.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal question and none is discernible from its allegations.

Allen v. Equifax Inc. · filed 2020-03-27

Allen does not identify any basis for federal question jurisdiction pursuant to ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (see Compl. at 3) nor can the Court discern from Allen’s allegations a federal question at issue in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a hit-and-run claim when the complaint pleads no federal cause of action.

(PC) Pacheco v. Williams · filed 2020-04-07

First, there is no properly pleaded federal cause of action that would permit federal question jurisdiction over the “hit and run” claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a property dispute that identifies no federal statute and has no federal law nexus.

Gilpin v. Stacks · filed 2020-05-04

Plaintiff has not identified a federal statute which he is seeking to proceed under. This lawsuit does not appear to have a federal law nexus.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites only a state medical malpractice statute and identifies no federal question.

Payton v. Touro Infirmary Hospital · filed 2020-05-19

Plaintiff claims the Court can exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case but cites only Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:2794, not the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Wilson v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia · filed 2020-07-29

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. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction or to state a federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; allegations about child custody, visitation, and damage to a tow truck do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Amadi v. King · filed 2020-08-29

To provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). This is federal question jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff’s child custody and visitation allegations simply do not confer federal jurisdiction. ... Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant damaged his tow truck do not raise federal claims and do not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a Rule 60(d) action challenging a state-court judgment when the complaint presents no independent federal question.

Smith v. Seene · filed 2020-10-22

Accordingly, because Rule 60(d) does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court does not have “independent” jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s FAC because a federal question is not presented.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law negligence and medical malpractice claims without a colorable federal claim.

El-Bey v. Brooklyn Hospital · filed 2020-12-01

Plaintiff has not alleged that her medical care was covered under any federal program or provision that would confer federal question jurisdiction over this action.

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

Monbo v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2020-12-02

There is also no federal claim raised by the allegations in the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a clearly presented federal question; vague references to rights and the Constitution do not establish jurisdiction.

El Bey v. Akan · filed 2021-01-21

The complaint also fails to present any federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While plaintiff uses phrasing like “deprivation of rights” and makes passing reference to the Constitution, he fails to actually articulate the fundamental “rights” of which he was allegedly deprived.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction, but invoking it requires identifying the constitutional or federal statutory provision underlying the claim.

Maki v. Trump · filed 2021-02-10

She cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which authorizes federal question jurisdiction, but does not identify the constitutional or statutory provisions at issue in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to support subject matter jurisdiction.

Groundspark v. TS Office Owner 4 · filed 2021-04-16

There is no federal question that would support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a discernible federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Lightfeather v. PornHub.com · filed 2021-06-01

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is generally set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. ... Here, no discernible “federal question” is alleged in the Complaint, and, even if Plaintiff might be able to fashion a cause of action under state law, he has not provided any facts regarding the citizenship of the parties.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a petition that presents none does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Karuppasamy v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2021-08-13

Karuppasamy’s petition provides no basis for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented (28 U.S.C. § 1331), or when there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (28 U.S.C. § 1332).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal question raised by the claim.

Nails v. Huntington Bank · filed 2021-09-21

Plaintiff points to no federal question that is invoked.

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

Foster v. Welcare · filed 2021-10-01

Foster neither asserts a federal question, 28 U.S.C. §1331, nor does he assert either the requisite amount in controversy or diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal question that is a direct element of the claim; an ineffective-assistance complaint against private defense attorneys with no alleged state action supplies no such question.

Clark v. Garcia · filed 2021-11-30

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that a federal court may hear “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” commonly known as federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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. ... This complaint does not state a federal claim. ... Absent a basis for jurisdiction over the claims asserted, the complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Hill v. Toma · filed 2022-02-25

The case was dismissed because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a “federal question” for decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, while there might be diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00, as required for the exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no federal question.

Lookadoo v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. · filed 2022-03-17

Because the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction, and there being no federal question such that it could exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Lookadoo’s complaint must be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim under the U.S. Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty.

Gunter v. Allen · filed 2022-04-11

Plaintiffs have not shown federal question jurisdiction is present in this case because they do not assert a colorable claim under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute or treaty.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to connect its alleged facts to a federal claim; merely listing federal laws does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Newton v. Compass Health Network · filed 2022-04-19

Plaintiff cannot simply provide a laundry list of federal laws in his complaint and without more, state that these laws form the bases for this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when a complaint presents no federal question or constitutional violation.

Williams v. Madigan · filed 2022-04-27

The Plaintiff cannot invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because she has not presented a federal question or alleged a constitutional violation.

Section 1331 permits federal district court jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question.

Favors v. Austin Womens Health Center · filed 2022-05-06

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 when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... This complaint neither presents a federal question nor demonstrates complete diversity between the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal civil claim.

Smith v. SpringHill Suites · filed 2022-05-06

The Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I have reviewed the Complaint and it does not raise a federal civil claim for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Minter v. Delmastro · filed 2022-05-26

First, Minter’s claims unquestionably fail to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when even a liberal reading of the pleading raises no federal or constitutional question.

Decker v. Punta Gorda Police Department · filed 2022-05-31

And from even the most liberal construction, there is no federal or constitutional question to divine from Plaintiff’s paper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no violation of federal law and presents no possible federal cause of action.

Lewis v. Abraha · filed 2022-06-03

He does not allege any violation of federal law that might support the exercise of jurisdiction under § 1331, and the court is unable to discern any possible federal cause of action based on the allegations in the complaint.

Section 1331 provides no jurisdiction when the operative complaint presents no federal question.

Joseph v. Westchester County Department of Community Mental Health · filed 2022-06-09

The only possible interpretation of the Third Amended Complaint is that there are no federal causes of actions being asserted, and therefore there are no federal questions being presented before the Court.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a question arising under federal law; allegations that identify no federal cause of action do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wengeler v. Yellen · filed 2022-06-24

The typical bases for federal jurisdiction are established where (1) the complaint presents a federal question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) where the parties are diverse (e.g., residents of different states) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... The amended complaint, even when liberally construed, fails to identify any basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. ... None of this discussion establishes a cause of action properly brought in federal court.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no federal claims remain.

Hershey v. City of Springfield · filed 2022-07-11

As detailed in this Order, no federal claims remain in the above-captioned case. The Court therefore finds that there is no federal question at issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a filing raises no federal question.

Godfrey v. Montana Supreme Court · filed 2022-07-13

There is no federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and he has not invoked this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts no claim involving a federal question.

Harris v. TD Ameritrade Clearing Inc. · filed 2022-08-18

Accordingly, Plaintiff does not assert a claim that involves a federal question, as such there is not jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint raises no question of federal law.

Watts v. Watts · filed 2022-10-03

Further, the topics of the letters concern do not suggest either a question of federal law or a dispute between persons of wholly diverse state citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 requires pleaded facts that implicate a federal question; invoking federal-question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Smith v. Mount Sinai Hospital, St. Luke · filed 2022-10-17

Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but the facts alleged do not implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only a state-law conspiracy and cites Article III without stating a federal claim.

Reynolds v. Coletta · filed 2022-12-07

Conspiracy claims, without more, arise under state law, not federal law. References to Article III of the United States Constitution do not state a federal claim that establishes federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify a federal question; citing federal laws without explaining how they bear on the claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Razzoli v. USDA · filed 2022-12-22

That leaves the plaintiff with federal question jurisdiction, but he does not identify any federal questions. The plaintiff cites PACA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York Human Rights Laws and the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but does not explain how those sources of law bear on his case, or identify any specific provisions in those laws.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question and plead facts establishing federal jurisdiction.

Spencer v. Obamas · filed 2022-12-29

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. ... That conclusory statement does not establish federal court jurisdiction, and “federal courts are without power to entertain claims” that “are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous[.]” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations fail to present a claim under federal law.

Gilliam v. HSBC Bank USA National Association · filed 2023-01-09

To the contrary, the court finds that Plaintiffs’ limited factual allegations, which relate to an unlawful detainer action in Orange County Superior Court, are insufficient to state a claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a purported constitutional claim lacks facts showing it is colorable.

Caston v. University of Houston · filed 2023-01-20

And generally, such claims fall under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The problem, though, is Caston sets forth no facts to show he has a colorable claim under those provisions.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Jordan v. All Star Auto · filed 2023-01-25

This complaint neither presents a federal question nor establishes diversity jurisdiction, as all the parties appear to reside or conduct business in Laurel, Maryland, and the amount in controversy does not meet the $75,000 threshold.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Spencer v. Catholic Charities · filed 2023-01-31

This complaint neither presents a federal question nor establishes diversity jurisdiction, as all the parties appear to reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia. Therefore, because subject matter jurisdiction is wanting, the Court must dismiss this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question for federal district court jurisdiction.

Rushing v. U-Haul Storage and Moving · filed 2023-02-08

First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s claims raise a federal question.

Rushing v. George Washington University Hospital · filed 2023-02-08

First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 requires a claim to raise a federal question for a district court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Rushing v. Homeless Shelter · filed 2023-02-09

First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law or the Constitution.

Cruz v. Mclindon · filed 2023-02-13

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a federal statute or constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion or requiring the accommodation of religious practices. ... Because Plaintiff has not articulated jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant, federal question Jurisdiction, and does not assert that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that identifies no federal question does not establish that jurisdiction.

Cruz v. Anderson · filed 2023-02-13

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... There is no assertion of jurisdiction in the Complaint. Because Plaintiff has not articulated jurisdiction under a specific ... statutory grant, federal question jurisdiction, and does not assert that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Lawrence v. Cannon Green Charleston LLC · filed 2023-02-23

The parties and the Court agree that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint sets forth no causes of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. As such, the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established when the allegations identify no federal constitutional provision, statute, or cause of action supporting the claims.

Price v. Johnson · filed 2023-02-28

The Complaint does not identify, for any named Defendant, what constitutional provision or federal statute the Defendant purportedly violated. Nor does Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court’s Show Cause Order identify any federal cause of action for Plaintiffs’ claims. The allegations of record are therefore insufficient to establish this Court’s “federal question” jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiff brings only state-law claims and presents no federal question.

Pregel America, Inc. v. Casol · filed 2023-03-10

Federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded in this case because Plaintiff is suing Defendants exclusively under North Carolina state law and no federal question has been presented.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to establish that a claim implicates a constitutional or federal question.

Long v. Waters · filed 2023-04-03

In light of the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff has not established that any claim she may have implicates a constitutional or federal question, or that her citizenship is different from the citizenship of every defendant.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to show how the alleged conduct violates the Constitution or federal law.

Cordery v. Ige · filed 2023-04-11

But it is unclear to the court, based on the limited nature of the Complaint, how the alleged mistiming of the State of Hawaii gubernatorial inauguration ceremony violates federal law or deprived Plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Stated differently, Plaintiff does not show how the timing of the inauguration, even if the election was contested at the time of the inauguration, constitutes a violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. Thus, Plaintiff also fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Spencer v. Alamo Car Rental · filed 2023-04-12

Plaintiff has not pleaded a jurisdictional basis, which is reason enough to dismiss the complaint. Nevertheless, no federal question is presented, and Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts, including the threshold amount in controversy, to proceed under the diversity statute.