Doe v. Klein

11 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. Hettleman

    494 F. Supp. 854 (D. Md. 1980)   Cited 3 times
    In Allen v. Hettleman, 494 F. Supp. 854 (D.Md. 1980), the question was presented whether the State of Maryland could include a minor mother and her child in a single AFDC assistance unit with the minor mother's parent and siblings, all of whom lived in the same household. The court ruled that this arrangement was permissible, rejecting both statutory and constitutional challenges.

    Those precise questions have not been decided in the Supreme Court or in the Fourth Circuit. In Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1979), plaintiff had applied for AFDC benefits provided by the State of Idaho. Plaintiff had so done when she was 16, unmarried, pregnant and living at home with her parents. Her parents were seemingly ineligible for AFDC benefits as to their daughter.

  2. Davis v. Pak

    856 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1988)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that federal courts are precluded from exercising jurisdiction when the only federal claim is obviously meritless

    It is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), to merely assert a constitutional violation. Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979). Federal jurisdiction requires that a party assert a substantial federal claim.

  3. Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency

    733 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 3,893 times
    Holding insufficient to support a § 1983 claim bare allegations of discrimination against African-Americans "unsupported by any facts as to how race entered into any decisions"

    If Jones has been otherwise injured, the state court where he originally filed a lawsuit in this matter is the appropriate forum. Cf. Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (federal jurisdiction fails where "alleged constitutional claims are asserted in order to obtain jurisdiction over [plaintiff's] statutory claim"). The 1983 claim set forth in the proposed second amended complaint essentially realleges almost all of the allegations from the state law causes of action.

  4. Dawson v. Myers

    622 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1980)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 has no bearing on the validity of states' financial eligibility requirements

    It is unclear whether jurisdiction was properly invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. See Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 99 S.Ct. 1905, 60 L.Ed.2d 508 (1979); Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1979). Nevertheless, the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 and so the district court did clearly have federal question jurisdiction ( 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

  5. Sachs v. DiCarlo

    No. CV-22-00471-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Aug. 11, 2022)

    Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979).

  6. Sachs v. Wees

    No. CV-22-00655-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Jul. 19, 2022)

    “Merely [asserting] a constitutional claim” under section 1343(a)(3) “is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction.” Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979).

  7. Sachs v. Kiffmeyer

    No. CV-22-00244-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Jul. 11, 2022)

    “Merely [asserting] a constitutional claim” under section 1343(a)(3) “is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction.” Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit; wholly unsubstantiated; obviously frivolous; plainly unsubstantial; or no longer open to discussion.”

  8. Sachs v. Quinlan

    No. CV-22-00430-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Jun. 22, 2022)

    “Merely [asserting] a constitutional claim” under section 1343(a)(3) “is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction.” Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979).

  9. Sachs v. Wees

    No. CV-22-00368-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz. Mar. 28, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979). Federal jurisdiction requires that a party assert a substantial federal claim.

  10. B.G.M. Enterprises v. Harris

    482 F. Supp. 1073 (D. Mont. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    In reviewing a statute subject to the standards set forth in Salfi, "unless a classification is `patently arbitrary' or `utterly lacking in rational justification', there is no due process violation." Doe v. Klein, 599 F.2d 338, 340 (9th Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court since Salfi has reemphasized the distinction between statutes regulating fundamental rights, for which irrebuttable presumptions may be deemed violative of due process, and statutes regulating economic matters, for which statutory irrebuttable presumptions are to be judged under a "rational justification" standard of review.