In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), plaintiff alleged violations of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because of its view that no recovery could be had. The circuit court affirmed, and the Supreme Court reversed, stating: "Jurisdiction, therefore, is not defeated as respondents seem to contend, by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the Court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy." (327 U.S. at 681-82, 66 S.Ct. at 775-76.) In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), the Court emphasized the importance that the district court look to the pleaders purpose for the suit, holding that where the complaint . . . is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court, but for two possible exceptions . . . must entertain the suit. Id. at 681-82. The reason for this is that the court must assume jurisdiction to decide whether the allegations state a cause of action on which the court can grant relief as well as to determine issues of fact arising in the controversy. Id. at 682. The Court concluded: Jurisdiction, therefore, is not defeated . . . by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover. For it is well settled that the failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. Id. In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), the plaintiffs alleged that certain F.B.I. agents had imprisoned them and made an illegal search and seizure of their premises in contravention of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and they sought damages from the individuals solely on the basis of their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court stated: 'Whether or not the complaint as drafted states a common law action in trespass made actionable by state law, it is clear from the way it was drawn that petitioners seek recovery squarely on the ground that respondents violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It charges that the respondents conspired to do acts prohibited by these amendments and alleges that respondents' conduct pursuant to the conspiracy resulted in damages in excess of $3,000. It cannot be doubted therefore that it was the pleaders' purpose to make violation of these constitutional provisions the basis of this suit. Before deciding that there is no jurisdiction, the District Court must look to the way the complaint is drawn to see if it is drawn so as to claim a right to recover under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Where the complaint, as here, is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court, but for two possible exceptions later noted, must entertain the suit.' (327 U.S. at 681-682, 66 S.Ct. at 775-776, 90 L.Ed. 939.)