Webb v. State of Utah, 706 F. App'x 470

Plaintiff David Webb sued Weber County and various officials for wrongful arrest (claims dismissed in March 2015 on grounds including immunity/qualified immunity).
Webb then filed two follow-on suits: one (July 2015) against the attorneys who represented the dismissed defendants, and another (Feb. 2016) against Utah and its subdivisions, alleging their assertions of immunity caused the dismissal of his prior claims.
Webb’s pleadings asserted that 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 (receipt of federal funds) precludes states and subdivisions from invoking immunity or qualified immunity; he sought injunctions and monetary relief.
The district court dismissed both follow-on complaints for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (standing), and alternatively for failure to state a claim, and it entered dismissals with prejudice.
The Tenth Circuit considered whether Webb had standing and whether his statutory theory gave rise to a colorable federal claim under § 1983; the panel concluded the claims were not sufficiently colorable to confer jurisdiction.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissals with prejudice, held the district court lacked jurisdiction, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the suits without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / subject-matter jurisdiction	Webb said improper assertions of immunity caused injury (dismissal of his prior claims) and are traceable to defendants	Defendants argued Webb failed to plead an injury fairly traceable or redressable	Court: Webb’s allegations suggested an injury, but claims were too insubstantial/colorless to confer jurisdiction; lack of jurisdiction found
Whether § 2000d-7 creates a private right enforceable under § 1983	Webb argued § 2000d-7 bars states from asserting immunity, creating an enforceable federal right he can vindicate	Defendants argued § 2000d-7 lacks rights-creating language and does not create a § 1983 right	Held: § 2000d-7 lacks rights-creating language; cannot be enforced via § 1983; claim not colorable
Dismissal with prejudice vs. without prejudice	Webb faced dismissal with prejudice by district court	Defendants supported dismissal on jurisdictional and merits grounds	Held: Jurisdictional dismissal must be without prejudice; reversed dismissal with prejudice and remanded to dismiss without prejudice

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (standing requires injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (courts may dismiss claims that are insubstantial or frivolous for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (§ 1983 requires violation of a federal right, not merely a federal statute)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (private right under § 1983 requires rights-creating statutory language)
McKenzie v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 761 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.) (discussing standards for dismissing insubstantial jurisdictional claims)
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (jurisdictional dismissals should be without prejudice)