Turnbough v. Wantland, 676 F. App'x 811

Plaintiff Conway J. Turnbough, Jr., a pro se prisoner, sued former appointed defense counsel Timothy Wantland and prosecutor James Ely under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging a conspiracy to forge his signature on a guilty plea in a 2007 aggravated-assault case.
Turnbough alleged the forgery was retaliation for demanding a jury trial in an unrelated lewd-molestation case and that the forged plea produced a consecutive five-year sentence; he discovered the alleged fake conviction in 2015.
The district court screened the original and amended complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissed the § 1983 conspiracy claims (finding pleading deficient), concluded Ely was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity, and found Wantland was not a state actor; § 1983 claims were dismissed with prejudice as to immunity/state-actor grounds, and state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Turnbough appealed, arguing (1) forgery was impossible absent a conspiracy among Ely, Wantland, and Judge Maxey; (2) Ely became a co-conspirator so is not immune; (3) Wantland conspired with Judge Maxey to deny access to courts; and (4) the court erred by not allowing leave to amend to add supporting evidence.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo the § 1915A dismissal and applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard for conspiracy allegations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff sufficiently alleged a § 1983 conspiracy to forge a plea	Turnbough: facts (timing, alleged forged plea, Wantland’s remarks) show an agreement to forge his plea	Defendants: allegations are conclusory and lack specific facts showing an agreement or concerted action	Dismissal affirmed — conspiracy allegations are conclusory and implausible under Twombly/Iqbal and Shimomura
Whether Ely lost prosecutorial immunity by participating in a conspiracy	Turnbough: Ely became a co-conspirator and thus not immune	Ely: entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for prosecutorial acts	Court did not reach the immunity merits but affirmed dismissal as amendment would be futile given absence of plausible conspiracy allegations
Whether Wantland was a state actor or conspired to deny access to courts	Turnbough: Wantland conspired with Judge Maxey to bar access to courts	Wantland: not a state actor; allegations do not show conspiracy	Dismissal affirmed — no plausible facts showing Wantland was a state actor or part of a conspiracy
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend	Turnbough: should have been allowed to file another amended complaint with new evidence	Defendants: Plaintiff never sought leave below; issues raised first on appeal	Leave-to-amend claim rejected — plaintiff failed to request leave in district court and cannot raise it for first time on appeal

Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir.) (standards for reviewing § 1915A dismissals)
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard in prisoner suits)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading conspiracy)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility pleading standard)
Shimomura v. Carlson, 811 F.3d 349 (10th Cir.) (specificity required for § 1983 conspiracy claims)
Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir.) (procedural rule barring new amendment arguments raised first on appeal)
Knight v. Mooring Capital Fund, LLC, 749 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir.) (futility as a basis to affirm dismissal with prejudice)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)