7 (D.R.I.1975). Federal question jurisdiction is available notwithstanding the fact that the defendant is a municipality which could not be sued in a parallel action under § 1983. Gray v. Union County Intermediate Educ. Dist., 520 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1975); Maybanks v. Ingraham, 378 F.Supp. 913 (E.D.Pa.1974). (But see Aldinger v. Howard, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), which arguably casts doubt on the future of § 1331 jurisdiction over civil rights actions against municipalities.) Second, there is no question but that the Municipal Defendants’ challenged conduct with respect to PGW’s collection and security deposit policies constitutes “state action.” See page 814, n. 5, supra. * But see Pitrone v. Mercadante, C.A. No. 75-2455 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 1976) (Ditter, J.) (<HOLDING>). 14 . This is an implied, but unmistakable,
holding second amendment right is incorporated against the states through fourteenth amendment holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie under the fourth amendment holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that there is no implied cause of action against a municipality arising out of the fourteenth amendment and cognizable under  1331a holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action