Terrance Quinlan v. John Conaty

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• Docket: 23-35071
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRANCE JOE QUINLAN, No. 23-35071

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00991-TSZ

v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN CONATY, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); DOUG WHITLEY, Kent Police Dept,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2024**

Before: CANBY, PAEZ, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Terrance Joe Quinlan 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), alleging claims related to his arrest. We

* 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157

(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Quinlan’s action because Quinlan’s

claims do not arise in one of the three contexts the Supreme Court has recognized

for Bivens claims, and thus would require expansion of the Bivens remedy. See

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 491-93 (2022) (explaining that recognizing a cause

of action under Bivens is “a disfavored judicial activity” and that the presence of an

alternative remedial structure precludes recognizing a Bivens cause of action in a

new context); Mejia v. Miller, 61 F.4th 663, 666 (9th Cir. 2023) (acknowledging

Supreme Court’s reluctance to recognize any new Bivens claims).

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).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35071