Court Opinion

ID: 9841496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 17:02:38.417056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:28.529111
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY P. TURNER,                              No.    23-15322

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00139-DLR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
FRONTIER AIRLINES INCORPORATED,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Anthony P. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Turner’s action because Turner failed

to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Corr. Servs.

Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 63 (2001) (declining to extend an implied damages

cause of action under Bivens against a private corporation).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Turner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied

as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     23-15322