Terrance Quinlan v. John Conaty

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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