Anthony P. Turner v. Frontier Airlines Incorporated

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY P. TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRONTIER AIRLINES INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-15322
D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00139-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15322
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 of 2 --