Bell v. Hood

United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division · 1947 · Corporations

71 F. Supp. 813 (1947)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationsfederal jurisdictionconstitutional tortsfederal officersfederal question jurisdictionFourth AmendmentFifth Amendmentdamages remedy

Facts

Plaintiffs, associated with "Mankind United," sought damages from 37 FBI agents, one Los Angeles policeman, and several unnamed defendants. They alleged defendants imprisoned them and searched their premises and seized their possessions in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiffs invoked federal question jurisdiction and alleged defendants acted beyond their authority, so they were being sued as individuals rather than as federal officers. No diversity of citizenship was alleged.

Issue

Can a federal court grant money damages against federal officers sued as individuals for alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when plaintiffs identify no federal statute or constitutional provision expressly creating such a cause of action? If not, may the court still retain the case to adjudicate any state-law trespass or false-imprisonment theory absent diversity?

Rule

A federal court's original jurisdiction depends on the federal claim asserted, not on the plaintiff's likelihood of success, so the court may assume jurisdiction to decide whether the complaint states a federal claim. But where neither the Constitution nor an act of Congress provides a damages remedy, and there is no diversity, a federal court cannot entertain an action at law for money damages; the Fourth and Fifth Amendments restrict only federal governmental action, not individual conduct, and they do not themselves create a cause of action for damages against individuals.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Vega sued six agents of the Federal Records Bureau in federal district court for $150,000. She alleged they detained her and searched her warehouse in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, expressly pleading no diversity and citing no federal damages statute.

How should the federal court treat the case at the outset under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule distinguishes jurisdiction from the existence of a cause of action. When the complaint is drawn to claim recovery under the Constitution, the district court has authority to decide the case unless the claim is wholly insubstantial or asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction. But absent a constitutional provision or federal statute creating a damages remedy, the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, not for lack of jurisdiction.