Opinion ID: 483876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: determining jurisdiction

Text: 7 Roberts alleges that the Parole Commission violated its regulations and the Constitution--specifically the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments--in making its judgment as to the nature and circumstances of [her] offense. In considering Roberts' claims, we must take care that the limited exceptions in Wallace do not swallow the rule. Petitioners unhappy with discretionary parole decisions cannot circumvent the Parole Act and obtain judicial review simply by labeling their claims as constitutional or extra-discretionary. Of course, we must also be true to Wallace's careful preservation of judicial review for legitimate constitutional or extra-discretionary claims. 8 Wallace therefore requires a threshold inquiry to determine jurisdiction. Ordinarily, where a jurisdictional issue is separable from the merits of a case, the court may determine jurisdiction by the standards of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In such a situation, the district court is: 9 free to hear evidence regarding jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving factual disputes where necessary. In such circumstances, [n]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims. 10 Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979)). 11 The relatively expansive standards of a 12(b)(1) motion are not appropriate for determining jurisdiction in a case like this, where issues of jurisdiction and substance are intertwined. A court may not resolve genuinely disputed facts where the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits. Augustine, 704 F.2d at 1077; accord Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. v. Ernst Enterprises, 711 F.2d 138, 139 (9th Cir.1983). In such a case, the district court assumes the truth of allegations in a complaint or habeas petition, unless controverted by undisputed facts in the record. (Of course, a court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1031, 102 S.Ct. 567, 70 L.Ed.2d 474 (1981).) Dismissal is then appropriate where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see also Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir.1981). This standard, often cited in Rule 12(b)(6) motions, ... is equally applicable in motions challenging subject matter jurisdiction when such jurisdiction may be contingent upon factual matters in dispute. Calhoun v. United States, 475 F.Supp. 1, 3 (S.D.Cal.1977), aff'd and adopted 604 F.2d 647 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1078, 100 S.Ct. 1029, 62 L.Ed.2d 761 (1980). 12 A limited threshold inquiry of this sort is consistent with our view that [j]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question jurisdiction are exceptional, and must satisfy the requirements specified in Bell v. Hood. Sun Valley Gasoline, 711 F.2d at 140. In Bell v. Hood, the Supreme Court held that such dismissals are permitted where the alleged claim under the constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction or where such claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (implied right of action under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments stated a claim over which the court had jurisdiction). We have used this immaterial and insubstantial standard in cases challenging decisions of the Veteran's Administration, over which we also have very limited jurisdiction. See Demarest v. United States, 718 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir.1983) (reversing the district court's jurisdictional dismissal where plaintiff's constitutional claim was not patently without merit), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 950, 104 S.Ct. 2150, 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984). 13 If a district court cannot determine jurisdiction on the basis of a threshold inquiry analogous to a 12(b)(6) motion, the court may assume jurisdiction and go on to determine the relevant jurisdictional facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial. Augustine, 704 F.2d at 1077; see also Thornhill Publishing Co., 594 F.2d at 734. This is the preferred course in our circuit for securities fraud cases where federal jurisdiction depends on whether disputed interests--which are central to the merits of the action--meet the statutory definition of a security. See Black v. Payne, 591 F.2d 83, 88 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 867, 100 S.Ct. 139, 62 L.Ed.2d 90 (1979); McConnell v. Frank Howard Allen & Co., 574 F.Supp. 781, 784 (N.D.Cal.1983). Taking jurisdiction was also held to be appropriate in an antitrust case, where dealing in interstate commerce was both an element of the substantive offense and a requirement for jurisdiction. See Thornhill Publishing Co., 594 F.2d at 733-34; cf. Berardinelli v. Castle & Cooke, Inc., 587 F.2d 37, 39 (9th Cir.1978) (affirming jurisdictional dismissal of antitrust action for failure to show dealing in interstate commerce where plaintiff conceded that jurisdiction and substantive facts were separate and distinct). 14 Thus district courts in the future can deal with challenges to Parole Commission decision-making in several ways. A minimal inquiry at the outset may enable a court to determine that the challenge fails to state a claim even assuming the truth of all uncontroverted allegations. If such a minimal inquiry is not sufficient to determine jurisdiction, the court may assume jurisdiction and resolve the disputed facts that go to the merits, reserving a final decision on jurisdiction. Claims with merit will of course confer jurisdiction on the court and must be decided on the merits.