Opinion ID: 3064893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdictional Framework

Text: [1] We do not lightly conclude that a § 1983 claim is so lacking that it fails to present a federal question. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must,” as Lone Star has done, “both (1) allege the deprivation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or statutory law, and (2) allege that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, “[a]lmost by definition, a claim under § 1983 arises under federal law . . . .” Local Union No. 12004, United Steelworkers of Am. v. Mass., 377 F.3d 64, 75 (1st Cir. 2004). Our inquiry does not end here, however. [2] Although a district court typically has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim “if ‘the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint will be sustained if the Constitution and laws of the United States are given one construction and will be defeated if they are given another,’ ” such jurisdiction is wanting if the claim “ ‘clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’ ” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89 (emphasis added) (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682-83, 685). We must therefore address whether Lone Star’s § 1983 claim is so untenable that it does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction on this basis “is proper only when the claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.’ ” Id. (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). [3] At least two circuits have addressed whether a due process claim under § 1983 presents a federal question where the plaintiff alleges only that a municipal ordinance is invalid under state law; both have answered in the negative. See Goros v. County of Cook, 489 F.3d 857, 859-60 (7th Cir. 8602 LONE STAR SECURITY v. LOS ANGELES 2007); Norton v. Vill. of Corrales, 103 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 1996). For the reasons below, we join these circuits, and hold that “when an attack on the validity of a city ordinance is limited to the claim that the ordinance violates state law[,] . . . the result of error in the administration of state law, though injury may result, is not a matter of federal judicial cognizance under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).