is not alleged here. The Bernofskys allege only mismanagement and incompetence, which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. As the Bernofskys’ allegations do not implicate a federal right, they have failed to state a claim under section 1983. 3. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Claim. The Bernofskys appear to allege a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment independent from their section 1983 claim. See Record Document 1 at 8. They do not cite any statute or common law doctrine in support of their claim. See id. To the extent the Bernofskys are alleging a stand-alone violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Circuit has expressly rejected such a claim. See Hearth, Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 612 F.2d 981 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Bernofskys have an alternative
holding that if the trial court would have had no discretion to deny summary judgment on an alternative ground the appellate court can on that alternative ground sustain the order granting summary judgment holding that where plaintiffs had an alternative remedy the court would not substitute its judgment for that of congress by creating an implied right of action holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding that court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment