Duberry v. District of Columbia
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1DissentKaren Lecraft Henderson, Circuit Judge
My colleagues conclude that the plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ordinarily the existence vel non of a federal cause of action determines a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). But this rule knows one “rare exception,” Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 740, 748 n. 8, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012), and I believe this case falls within it. In my view the district court was without subject-matter jurisdiction and I would therefore…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Blessing v. FreestoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.