28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

Grinds v. Davis · filed 2023-04-12

It does not appear from a review of the complaint that the Plaintiff presents a federal question to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Garth v. LFUCPD · filed 2023-04-13

Because Garth’s complaint does not allege a violation of federal law, there is no federal question presented in Garth’s complaint as is required for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint that identifies no legal authority and implies none does not satisfy that requirement.

Mikenas v. Rieff · filed 2023-04-14

First, plaintiff’s claims fail to raise any federal question. The complaint does not identify any legal authority upon which plaintiff may rely, nor can any be inferred from context.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to identify a federal law that establishes a federal question.

Yah v. Church & Dwight Corporation · filed 2023-04-14

Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not identify any federal laws at issue that establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a vague reference to the Federal Reserve without context or supporting authority does not establish jurisdiction.

Mason v. Kent · filed 2023-04-17

Second, plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 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. ... Plaintiff attempts to raise a federal question, but then cites only vaguely to the “Federal Reserve,” without any context or authority in support.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be presented for federal district court jurisdiction.

Lee v. U.S. Federal Goverment · filed 2023-04-18

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to establish this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 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 complaint must allege a federal question to establish jurisdiction under § 1331.

Wheeler v. Kansas Department of Labor · filed 2023-04-18

Also, “the Complaint does not allege a federal question[,]” which bars jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The court agrees with his conclusion that plaintiff’s Complaint, even when given the most liberal construction, fails to state a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations disclose no federal question.

Cozart v. Jeffrey · filed 2023-05-02

Plaintiff's allegations do not suggest the existence of a federal question nor are the parties diverse.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no cause of action premised on a federal question.

Barrow v. Flowers Hospital Administration · filed 2023-05-11

A review of the complaint reveals that the Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action premised on a federal question. Consequently, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that brings only state-law claims and presents no federal question.

Leon v. Triple T Transportation Service LLC · filed 2023-05-12

Moreover, Leon has failed to establish any other basis for federal jurisdiction, as he brings only state law claims and does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires facts in the complaint sufficient to present a colorable issue of federal law.

Green v. Hall Davis and Sons · filed 2023-05-30

Plaintiff does not provide enough facts to show that his Complaint presents a “colorable issue of federal law,” under any of the bases that might be present giving him the benefit of liberal interpretation.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it.

Sanders v. New York Times · filed 2023-05-30

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing that the Court has either federal question or diversity jurisdiction of this matter, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Braxton v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-06-01

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. ... Plaintiff has not pleaded a basis for federal court jurisdiction, which is reason enough to dismiss the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a complaint alleging no such claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Otazhonov v. MTA-John Doe · filed 2023-06-15

As his case does not arise under federal laws, there is no subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court must dismiss the case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no constitutional or statutory basis for it.

Hampton v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2023-06-16

Hampton’s amended complaint does not allege a constitutional or statutory basis for jurisdiction. Instead, she alleges that she is a citizen of Texas and that Allstate is a citizen of Illinois, and she appears to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction.

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

Diaz v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-06-22

Moreover, the Complaint does not raise federal question jurisdiction or jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant. Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Woolens v. Abrams · filed 2023-06-28

Further, upon review of the complaint for the purpose of discerning any possible basis, plaintiff does not raise a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and he alleges that both he and defendant reside in Wilmington, North Carolina, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

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

Hayes v. 48-52 South 2nd Ave. L.L.C. · filed 2023-07-04

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that this Court can consider his claims under its federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Lipscomb v. Fox News Corporation · filed 2023-07-06

The Amended Complaint still fails to allege a federal question, that is, a viable cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the record reveals no issue arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Lee v. Loomis Armored US, LLC (CONSENT) · filed 2023-07-07

Nor has the court’s independent review of the record uncovered any issue that could be construed as “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction when a federal question is presented; a claim against a defendant that raises no federal question does not establish that jurisdiction.

Carter v. Dc Department of Human Services Child Family Services · filed 2023-07-17

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 these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available when a “federal question” is presented or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff does not appear to raise a federal claim against The Sterling, and because plaintiff and The Sterling reside or conduct business in the District of Columbia, plaintiff does not demonstrate diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; invoking federal question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Hernandez v. De La Rosa · filed 2023-07-17

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s allegations implicate no federal law or right.

McKenzie v. T-Mobile · filed 2023-07-20

These allegations do not implicate any federal law or right, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a challenge to rental agreement terms that presents no federal question.

(PS) Davis v. Heritage Parks Apartment LP · filed 2023-07-21

To the extent plaintiff challenges the terms of the rental agreement, the court has no jurisdiction to hear such claims as they do not present a federal question and diversity jurisdiction does not exist, as the parties are both citizens of California.

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

Wright v. T-Mobile USA Inc. · filed 2023-07-24

Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, he also fails to allege federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

ROCKEMORE v. CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2023-07-26

Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 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.”; ... WHEREAS, accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and because Plaintiff does not point to any particular Constitutional provision or federal law that Defendant violated Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); ... ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 requires an alleged violation of federal law to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Peed v. Farrington · filed 2023-07-31

Plaintiff also does not allege any violations of federal law that would make jurisdiction appropriate in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and breach-of-contract claims that implicate no federal law or right.

McKenzie v. Chad Warren Steoping Stone Pre & Grade School · filed 2023-08-01

In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert any valid basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over her claims, as she has neither presented a federal question nor asserted diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges negligence and breach of contract, which may assert causes of action under state law, but these allegations do not implicate any federal law or right.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the dispute to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Prospect Funding Holdings (NY) v. Ronald J. Palagi, P.C., L.L.C. · filed 2023-08-07

The dispute between Prospect and Palagi and his firm does not contain a federal question, so diversity of citizenship between the parties must exist.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint fails to allege a factual or legal basis for a federal claim.

Anderson v. Fritz · filed 2023-08-09

Here, Plaintiff does not set forth any factual or legal basis for a federal claim under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Even construing the Complaint liberally, it does not contain allegations reasonably suggesting federal question jurisdiction exists in this matter.

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

Sachs v. Sachs · filed 2023-08-21

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of a federal statute or the federal Constitution.

Sporer v. Gundersen Hospital · filed 2023-08-29

Where the parties are citizens of the same state and the complaint does not allege a violation of a federal statute or the federal Constitution, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a discernible federal question to provide a district court with jurisdiction.

Welch Racing LLC v. Barnett · filed 2023-09-01

As Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, consequently, there is no discernible “federal question” alleged in the Complaint and therefore no jurisdictional basis for this Court to proceed.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under a federal statute or constitutional provision to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Seattle Times · filed 2023-09-11

For example, Mr. Jones fails to assert any federal statute or Constitutional provision under which his claims against the University of Washington,3 or the Seattle Times arise, which is the only potential source of jurisdiction, as those entities both are Washington based organizations prohibiting complete diversity.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. University of Washington Medicine · filed 2023-09-11

For example, Mr. Jones fails to assert any federal statute or Constitutional provision under which his claims against the University of Washington,3 or the Seattle Times arise, which is the only potential source of jurisdiction, as those entities both are Washington based organizations prohibiting complete diversity.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the proposed federal claim fails and the remaining claims arise under state law.

Freiner v. Judy · filed 2023-09-18

The lack of civil conspiracy claims under § 1983 means that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be established by a defendant’s counterclaim.

Oxmoor Land, LLC v. Hewitt · filed 2023-09-25

Next, a defendant cannot establish subject-matter jurisdiction by raising federal question counterclaims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to support jurisdiction.

JCD HERITAGE HILLS, L.L.C. v. FERRELLGAS, L.P. · filed 2023-09-25

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and does not contain any allegations that would raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state law claims that raise no federal question.

Munroe v. Fein, Such and Crane LLP · filed 2023-09-27

Plaintiff’s state law claims fail to raise any federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Plaintiff does not claim that the parties are diverse, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises an issue involving the Constitution or federal law.

Attaway v. Doe · filed 2023-10-12

Because Attaway has not raised any issues involving the Constitution or a federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal subject matter jurisdiction is only proper if diversity jurisdiction exists among the parties.

Section 1331 requires an alleged federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

Ramsell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-10-18

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

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

Qtaish v. Bronzeville Park Nursing and Living Center · filed 2023-10-19

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to raise any federal question.

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

Alcaraz v. Helton · filed 2023-10-20

Here, Plaintiff does not make any allegations of actions by Defendants arising under the Constitution, federal law or treatises of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when no federal question exists.

Perez v. Byrd · filed 2023-10-23

No federal question exists that would create jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Holly Manor Associates, LLC v. Valada · filed 2023-10-27

As Plaintiff's complaint does not raise a question of federal law and both parties are domiciled in New York, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a state tort claim with no federal cause of action does not satisfy that requirement.

Becker v. Scottsbluff County Sheriff · filed 2023-12-12

The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is generally set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented (i.e., in a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States) or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... There is no federal cause of action for such a claim and Plaintiff’s allegations—construed liberally—seek damages under state tort law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a tort claim against a private actor that raises no federal question.

Couther v. Bassett · filed 2023-12-18

First, plaintiff has filed a tort claim against a private actor and thus the Complaint raises no federal question.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the removing party shows no federal basis for the action.

Giannella v. Hanna · filed 2024-02-16

Here, Hanna provides no evidence or argument indicating that the court has either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction over the Fourth Action.

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

Al-Tamimi v. Adelson · filed 2024-02-23

Naming a federal statute in a complaint cannot confer federal question jurisdiction if its mention is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” ... Applying that standard, the court finds that neither the cited criminal and civil forfeiture statutes, nor the TVPA, create a federal controversy.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that arise only under state law.

Rodriguez v. PCI Contractor · filed 2024-03-20

The Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims because they do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

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

Anglin v. ChildNet · filed 2024-03-22

The Amended Complaint meets none of these criteria: The Plaintiff has identified no federal statutes; she has pointed to no federal question; and she has not established our diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for federal-question jurisdiction.

ELLIS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2024-03-22

The Second Amended Complaints fail to plead any facts showing any of the defendants are state actors, were acting under color of state law, or that the claims derive from the Constitution or any other law or treaty of the United States. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction over this case and the Second Amended Complaints must be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal controversy is so insubstantial or implausible that it is devoid of merit.

Carr v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2024-03-26

As such, a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; 28 U.S. C. § 1331; see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. ... In conclusion, the Court finds Carr’s new purported examples of FBI and DOJ conduct are again “insubstantial, implausible, [and] or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Cook Inlet Region, Inc., 690 F.3d at 1131 (quoting Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89). Thus, Carr fails to provide the Court with a basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, alleges no federal claim.

Butler v. Faraci · filed 2024-03-26

Given Plaintiff’s pro se status and in an abundance of caution, the Court has considered whether the complaint plausibly alleges a federal question such that subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 could be invoked. Even upon a liberal construction, the Court discerns no such claim.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a negligence claim that presents no federal question.

Jackson v. Boyd Gaming · filed 2024-04-02

No federal question exists in this negligence case.

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

Curry v. Dollar General · filed 2024-04-09

First, the Complaint provides no basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s allegations to establish a federal question before the court may exercise jurisdiction.

Tyler v. United Health · filed 2024-05-07

Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question discernible from the complaint’s allegations.

Ba v. Legavox · filed 2024-05-24

First, plaintiff has not stated a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He neither cites to any federal authority, nor can the court otherwise discern a federal question from the allegations as presented.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal laws cited in a complaint are inapplicable to its claims.

Boeve v. Southstate Bank N.A. · filed 2024-06-20

In the complaint, Plaintiff predicates jurisdiction on the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. However, Plaintiff’s complaint presents no viable federal questions. Although he cites to some federal statutes and UCC provisions, they are inapplicable to his claims, as discussed in more depth below.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; allegations identifying no applicable federal statute or constitutional provision do not establish jurisdiction.

Smith v. Community Hospital · filed 2024-07-02

Plaintiff does not allege any violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Indeed, Plaintiff does not cite any particular federal statute or constitutional provision that would be applicable to the allegations in her complaint. Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

Anham USA Inc. v. Afghan Global · filed 2024-07-10

Plaintiffs do not allege a federal question in the Amended Complaint. Therefore, the only basis for this Court’s jurisdiction would be diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal law or constitutional provision allegedly violated so the court can determine whether it has federal-question jurisdiction.

Adams v. Capital One Auto Finance · filed 2024-07-18

But he has not identified a federal law or constitutional provision that he believes has been violated. ... The court cannot determine whether it has “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a breach of contract claim that presents none does not establish federal jurisdiction.

Isom v. Cowan · filed 2024-07-24

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 these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available when a “federal question” is presented or when the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... This case does not present a federal question, and plaintiff fails to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction.

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

Neisen and minor children (C.R., K.R., M.R.) v. Lewis · filed 2024-07-30

Here, the Complaint does not present any question of federal law.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and no facts demonstrating a federal-law claim.

Lewis v. State Farm · filed 2024-08-21

Read liberally, the Amended Complaint asserts products-liability and negligence claims under state law. (See Doc. 27). Because the Amended Complaint is devoid of facts demonstrating a federal law claim, and because Plaintiff and defendant Owens are each citizens of New York, complete diversity is lacking and there exists no basis for the Court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.

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

Merritt v. Performance First · filed 2024-08-26

Specifically, Judge Morris concluded that, although hard to decipher, Plaintiffs’ Complaint “does not raise a federal question” to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Further, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 40, is ADOPTED.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s § 1983 claim alleges no state actor and the complaint presents no other federal claim.

Cotton v. Shalk · filed 2024-09-06

Because there is no indication that Defendants are state actors, Cotton’s § 1983 claim does not provide a basis for jurisdiction. And after carefully reviewing the remainder of the Complaint, there are no other federal claims that would confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents no question of federal law.

Seeman v. Hlady · filed 2024-09-11

The Court does not have a basis for original subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim—no question of federal law is presented by the claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Seemans do not allege that they are of diverse citizenship from each of the defendants to this action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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

Carter v. Husker Auto Group & Manufacturer · filed 2024-09-20

Since there is no federal question pled in the amended complaint, the Court may only exercise jurisdiction over this matter if there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; claims asserting solely state law causes of action do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harrison v. Young · filed 2024-09-30

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for solely state law causes of action, despite seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which requires a federal question, and invoking statutes that do not provide a private cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted constitutional basis is conclusory and patently meritless.

Tisdell v. Hogan · filed 2024-10-04

Plaintiff invokes the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... the allegations in her filings are conclusory and do not articulate a colorable constitutional violation. ... “If the asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over claims when the amended complaint presents no federal question.

Wilson v. Chahine · filed 2024-10-10

Without a federal question underlying any claim in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), and without diversity between the parties, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action.

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

Cahill v. Cahill-Vieira · filed 2024-10-10

Plaintiff has filed a SAC that does not present a federal question and fails to allege the citizenship of each defendant.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing a claim under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Santos v. Quaker Oat Pesticide · filed 2024-10-26

Plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest that her claims fall under the court’s federal question jurisdiction. ... Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, however, without any facts demonstrating a claim under federal law, does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal question; a claim with no arguable basis in federal law cannot support federal-question jurisdiction.

Thompson v. Mason · filed 2024-10-30

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

Section 1331 requires a complaint to assert a federal cause of action or otherwise implicate a federal question.

Nails, Angela v. True Stage Accidental Insurance · filed 2024-11-14

The complaint does not assert a federal cause of action or otherwise implicate a federal question showing that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law; housing-related allegations that raise no federal question do not establish jurisdiction.

Brewer v. U.S. Bank, NA · filed 2024-11-22

There are two types of federal subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction, which requires a claim based on a federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, which requires a lawsuit with a value of greater than $75,000 and in which no defendant lives in the same state as the plaintiff, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... As indicated in the September Order, plaintiff has not asserted how the alleged conduct by defendants U.S. Bank and Pomerantz raises a federal question or satisfies the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

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

Beasley v. Department of Corrections · filed 2024-12-05

Even if substituted, however, the District of Columbia is “a stateless entity” that “is not subject to diversity jurisdiction,” Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and the complaint does not present a federal question.

Federal-question jurisdiction in a removed action cannot be created by raising federal claims in response to the action or in the notice of removal.

Lacayo v. Dalton · filed 2024-12-09

Moreover, Dalton could not manufacture federal question jurisdiction by raising a federal question in response to Lacayo’s appeal or by including federal claims in her notice of removal.

Section 1331 requires a discernible question of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dingess v. Hocking County Prosecutor · filed 2024-12-16

Plaintiff does not demonstrate the existence of a question of federal law necessary to establish this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to establish a federal question before a district court may exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Fliehmann-Starkey v. Alsakaf · filed 2024-12-31

Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Hendricks v. Garcia · filed 2025-01-07

Here, plaintiff brings claims of common-law negligence and negligent entrustment, and nothing in plaintiff’s complaint raises any question of federal law.

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

Williams v. Excel Development Co., Inc. · filed 2025-01-16

The only two potentially applicable bases for subject-matter jurisdiction here are diversity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But, because the Complaint fails to raise any substantial federal question, that means the Court is dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s allegations to establish a federal question for the court to exercise jurisdiction.

McSpadden v. Craighead · filed 2025-01-27

Here, the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Morningstar v. Lightening Source, LLC · filed 2025-02-19

As mentioned above, Plaintiff does not assert any federal question, nor does the Court discern one in the Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a complaint that presents no federal question and alleges obstruction of correspondence.

Green v. Community Connections · filed 2025-02-20

This case does not present a federal question, and “obstruction of correspondence,” Compl. at 3, is not a valid basis for this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the underlying claim; citing the jurisdictional statute alone does not establish jurisdiction.

U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Polanco Jr · filed 2025-03-18

First, there is no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. ... But beyond the jurisdictional statute, Polanco invokes no federal law. Nor does he explain how the Queens Supreme Court proceeding — involving a foreclosure action based on New York State law and between citizens of New York — raises a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; statements that identify no federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Pebbles v. MECU Credit Union · filed 2025-03-24

Ms. Pebbles lists federal question jurisdiction as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and the specific provisions that are at issue as “1. Interrogate, issue arrest,” “2. How long?,” and “3. Return of controversy.” ECF No. 1 at 4. None of these statements are statutes that could provide subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint presenting no federal basis for relief does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Beasley v. Department of Child Support Emforcement · filed 2025-04-21

Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, id. § 1331, or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” id. § 1332(a). ... First, plaintiff has not stated a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that do not implicate a federal law or right.

Mckenzie v. T-Mobile · filed 2025-04-23

These allegations do not implicate any federal law or right and therefore cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over education-quality or school-contract claims when the plaintiff identifies no applicable federal law or constitutional right.

McKenzie v. Warren · filed 2025-04-29

As before, Plaintiff has not identified any federal law or constitutional right related to the quality of education or Plaintiff’s contract with the school.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; tort claims with no discernible federal basis do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Visconti v. Pinto · filed 2025-05-12

Here, Visconti has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She brings tort claims and does not cite to any federal authority, nor does the Court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from any of the information presented.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claimed federal right is not so insubstantial, implausible, or foreclosed that it fails to present a federal controversy.

Sandoval v. Abbott House · filed 2025-05-15

“To invoke subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 [federal question jurisdiction generally] or 1343(a)(3) [jurisdiction for § 1983 suits], the federal right claimed in a complaint must not be . . . ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of th[e Supreme] Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’” Giammatteo v. Newton, 452 F. App’x 24, 28–29 (2d Cir. 2011) (footnotes omitted) (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env’t Stud. Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 70–71 (1978)). In the Second Circuit, “[w]hether a parent of a child harmed in foster care has a claim of his or her own is an unsettled question.” Rivers v. McLeod, 252 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. 2001). Sandoval’s § 1983 claim thus isn’t completely foreclosed by controlling caselaw, so the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint suggests no basis for a federal question.

Mazzei v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CO. · filed 2025-05-16

As Plaintiff has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, nor does his complaint suggest any basis for federal question jurisdiction, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal question; the court held that claims under the cited statutes without private rights of action did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid · filed 2025-05-23

Plaintiff asserts claims alleging violations of several such statutes that do not confer private rights of action, namely, the HEA and certain provisions of the criminal code. These claims fail to raise a colorable federal question and must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to present a federal question; these malpractice and tort allegations did not.

Hawks v. Davies · filed 2025-06-10

This case does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on a federal question; a dispute that does not implicate federal law does not satisfy that requirement.

Dabbouseh v. Kilani · filed 2025-06-20

To bring this case within federal jurisdiction, the Plaintiff must either bring a claim based on a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or bring a claim under state law and allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This case involves a dispute among spouses and a sister—which does not appear to implicate federal law.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded federal claim unless the claim is made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Carpenter v. Tangipahoa Parish · filed 2025-06-26

Put simply, Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim does not “clearly appear[] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell, 327 U.S. at 682–83. From the pleadings, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff alleges that fraud deprived her of the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Piedrabuena v. Jaffe & Asher LLP · filed 2025-07-02

However, merely alleging a violation of Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial does not cure the jurisdictional defect.

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

MOSES v. CHATHAM UNIVERSITY · filed 2025-07-07

Moses has failed to allege what federal question exists. He asserts no violations of federal rights or statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal question is present.

Deromano v. Alabama State Bar · filed 2025-07-14

Without any federal question jurisdiction (or diversity jurisdiction, which Plaintiff does not claim), the court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims of medical malpractice and fraud.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only state-law claims and no constitutional or federal statutory cause of action.

(PC) Wright v. Percil · filed 2025-07-28

Further, without any constitutional or federal statutory causes of action, the undersigned lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3).

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

Madasu v. Carrick's Auto · filed 2025-08-14

Nor did Plaintiff present a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 3) as the findings of this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

McMillan v. Cheveron · filed 2025-08-18

Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the claims in the Case 83 Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded claims do not establish a federal cause of action.

McMillan v. KFC · filed 2025-08-18

Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the claims in the Case 83 Complaint.

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

Crowe v. Plymouth Rock Management · filed 2025-09-10

As a threshold matter, the Complaint does not raise any federal question that would support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a slip-and-fall complaint that alleges no facts supporting a violation of federal law.

Tomlinson v. Roses Discount Stores · filed 2025-09-11

Furthermore, the court agrees that this “‘slip-and-fall” action (so-called by the Plaintiff) fails to allege facts supporting a violation of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on state tort law that present no federal question.

Cofield v. LinkedIn Corporation · filed 2025-09-26

The claims asserted against these defendants are purportedly based on state tort law and do not present any federal question.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim that presents a substantial federal question even if the claim fails on the merits.

Goszczynska · filed 2025-09-30

The VARA claim presents a federal question. As detailed below, however, that claim fails under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint’s sparse facts and unexplained reference to the Constitution reveal no federal question.

Khoza v. the District of Columbia · filed 2025-10-21

Plaintiff cites baldly to the Constitution, see Compl. at 3, but the Court is unable to discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the sparse facts presented in the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law or otherwise involve a federal question for federal question jurisdiction.

Bond · filed 2025-11-04

There are no allegations in the pleadings suggesting that Bond’s claims against FSTE arise under federal law or otherwise involve a federal question as required for the Court to have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a complaint that identifies no federal cause of action or other basis for federal-question jurisdiction does not satisfy it.

Brown v. Safeway · filed 2025-11-13

Plaintiff has not stated a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal question; a complaint that identifies no federal cause of action or other basis for federal question jurisdiction does not establish jurisdiction.

Wayne v. Unknown · filed 2025-11-13

First, he has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the Complaint.

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

Powell v. Bergersen · filed 2025-11-13

Plaintiff purports to invoke federal question jurisdiction, see Compl. at 3, but she has not stated a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. She neither cites to any federal authority, nor can the Court otherwise discern a federal question from the allegations as presented.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the record presents no issue arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Tucker · filed 2025-12-05

Nor has the court’s independent review of the record uncovered any issue that reasonably could be construed as “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no federal law or theory giving rise to a federal question.

Boone · filed 2025-12-05

In his brief complaint, plaintiff does not invoke any federal statute under which a federal question arises. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal basis for its claims and seeks review of a state-court judgment.

Samples · filed 2025-12-12

At bottom, there is no federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Alexander · filed 2025-12-18

Accordingly, the court has no federal question jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiff abandons the only federal claims and brings no new federal claims.

Shamley · filed 2025-12-30

Since those were the only federal claims she originally brought, and she has not otherwise renewed, redressed, or brought new federal claims, there is no way for her action to proceed in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Wayne, Jr. v. Four Coasian Male Suspects · filed 2026-01-02

He does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the Court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question through a federal cause of action or another basis apparent from its facts.

Wayne, Jr. v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2026-01-02

First, he has failed to state a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He does not invoke any authority that provides a federal cause of action, nor can the Court independently discern any basis for federal question jurisdiction from the facts given in the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged conduct violates only state law.

Sires v. State of Washington · filed 1963-04-30

Appellant has not alleged grounds for federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He does not allege that the Board has, or threatens to, violate a provision of the constitution or laws of the United States, but only that its (undisclosed) action is contrary to the statutes and constitution of the State of Washington.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; the court held that a complaint alleging neither a deprivation of federal rights nor state action did not establish jurisdiction through § 1983.

Barbosa · filed 2026-01-23

A federal court has jurisdiction over a matter only when it presents a “federal question,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where there is “diversity of citizenship” and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Therefore, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim to implicate substantive federal law; a contract claim that does not implicate federal law raises no federal question.

Thornton v. Hunt · filed 2026-01-27

But “[f]or a case to raise a federal question within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it must implicate some provision of substantive federal law,” Youkelsone v. FDIC, 560 F. App’x. 4, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (per curiam), which this contract action does not.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question arising under federal law; jurisdiction is absent when the plaintiff neither asserts nor demonstrates one.

Dowlad · filed 2026-02-03

Mr. Dowlad does not assert—or demonstrate—jurisdiction based on a federal question either.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs fail to meet its jurisdictional requirements.

Christian v. New York State Department of Labor, Division of Employment · filed 1972-07-24

Plaintiffs have not met the jurisdictional requirements under 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331, 1337 or 1346, the so-called “federal question” jurisdiction sections.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no viable claim under federal law, the Constitution, or a treaty.

HOHSFIELD · filed 2026-02-27

Despite having done so, the Court cannot discern any other violation of federal law, the Constitution, or treaty of the United States pled in the Complaint over which this Court may properly exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is patently frivolous and no longer open to discussion.

BAQUERO · filed 2026-03-10

In short, because Defendant’s argument that motor vehicle regulations violate his “right to travel” is patently frivolous and has not been “open to discussion” since cars were invented, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state law claims that present no federal question.

Queen · filed 2026-03-13

The Court lacks original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims because they present no federal question,46 and the Amended Complaint does not allege that the parties are “citizens of different states,” so there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege a federal question to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Der Nederlanden · filed 2026-03-19

The district court properly dismissed Petit Jackson’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Petit Jackson failed to allege a federal question, establish the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, or establish an exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to allege a violation of federal law.

Calisto · filed 2026-03-24

Without an alleged violation of FLSA, there is no federal question here, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the record presents no issue arising under federal law.

Dawson · filed 2026-04-03

Nor has the court’s independent review of the record uncovered any issue that reasonably could be construed as “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over actions involving a federal question; a complaint that identifies no federal basis does not establish that jurisdiction.

Younce · filed 2026-04-29

Plaintiff’s Complaint consists largely of generalized assertions of harassment, fraud, and improper and illegal activity, but it does not clearly identify a legal basis for federal jurisdiction or explain what specific federal right was violated.

Section 1331(a) does not provide jurisdiction when Supreme Court precedent forecloses the asserted federal claim, making it plainly insubstantial.

Port Authority Bondholders Protective Committee v. Port of New York Authority · filed 1967-07-07(a)

Accordingly, I hold that the claim made by plaintiffs has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court and is thus “plainly insubstantial” for purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) requires a federal question to be a vital or essential element of the plaintiff’s right to recovery.

Baker v. Central & South West Corp. · filed 1971-12-10(a)

In order to predicate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331(a) on such regulations or safety standards in this case they must form a vital or essential element of Plaintiffs’ right to recovery.

Section 1331 requires alleged facts invoking a federal question for district court jurisdiction.

Melendez v. Arizona Department of Economic Security Arizona State Personnel Board · filed 1993-12-01

Moreover, because Melendez failed to allege any facts invoking a federal question, the district court properly dismissed his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal-law question; claims grounded in state tort law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Mills v. Brown · filed 2005-06-09

Each Complaint, alleges a species of tortious interference claim in each of the counts and fails to raise a federal question; the tort claims being grounded such as they are in state common and statutory law.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a constitutional tort claim unless the claim is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or absolutely devoid of merit.

Miller v. Barry · filed 1982-06-23(a)

Applying these principles to the case before us, we conclude that plaintiff’s complaint is not so “absolutely devoid of merit” as to defeat the jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1331 does not necessarily provide subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint merely because it asserts constitutional claims.

Hamlin v. Governor, Commonwealth of Kentucky United States of America, USA Constitution President Ronald · filed 1990-04-06

Upon consideration, we conclude that this case was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331; Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974).

Section 1331 does not give a district court authority to overturn a state appellate decision based on state law that does not violate federal law.

Grandinetti v. Office of The Public Defender · filed 2020-06-25

Moreover, this Court has no authority to overturn the ICA’s decision to dismiss his appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Grandinetti failed to timely appeal his conviction under state law, see Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(b)(1), where the state law itself does not violate federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to be presented in the complaint.

Moni v. Volusia County, Corp. · filed 2018-04-05

Because we agree with the district court that there is no ... federal question presented in Moni’s amended complaint we do not need to discuss the adequacy of Moni’s state law cause of action for IIED.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is neither wholly insubstantial nor brought solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Complete Logistical Servs., LLC v. Rulh · filed 2018-10-15

Having brought a federal claim for relief that is neither "wholly insubstantial" nor brought "solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction," the Court finds it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when no interpretation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty could determine the dispute.

Graves v. Sneed · filed 1976-09-01

We agree with Chief Judge Brown that § 1331 does not ... confer jurisdiction under the averments of the complaint because no construction of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States could be determinative of this litigation.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a conversion claim that raises no federal question.

Friends of Yosemite v. Frizzell · filed 1976-09-27

Similarly, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the alleged conversion of approximately $630.00 worth of Skaggs’s possessions. This claim does not raise either federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction only when a federal question is otherwise at issue.

Ellis v. Cassidy · filed 1980-06-20

28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is otherwise at issue; it does not create federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction only when a federal question is otherwise at issue; it does not itself create federal jurisdiction.

Ellis v. Cassidy · filed 1980-08-26

28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers jurisdiction only where a federal question is otherwise at issue; it does not create federal jurisdiction.

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

Bell-Boston v. Pittman · 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 i~ available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Since the complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction, it will be dismissed.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question, but a patently insubstantial claim presents no federal question suitable for decision.

MacGuire v. Travelers Indemnity Company · filed 2013-10-01

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

Simmons v. Washington Metropolitan Orthopedic · filed 2014-10-29

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. ... The complaint does not present a federal question, and plaintiff does not seek money damages. Hence, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction.