are not engaged in federal action. Thus, the appellees reason, Orleans established not only that community action agencies are not arms of the federal government, but that such agencies are never engaged in federal action for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, they conclude, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and its dismissal should be affirmed. III. The threshold issue is whether the district court properly dismissed the appellants’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our resolution of that issue depends on the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. This is an area of some disagreement among the circuits. For example, compare Robinson v. Bergstrom, 579 F.2d 401, 404 (7th Cir. 1978) (<HOLDING>) with Meredith v. Allen County War Memorial
holding that the proper ground for dismissal of a  1983 action in which the plaintiff has failed to establish state action is lack of jurisdiction holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983 holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action