Mot. to Dismiss, p. 9-11. 5 . Plaintiff contends for the first time in his response brief in a conclusory fashion that "Defendants sued in their personal capacities denied Plaintiff procedural due process, notice and opportunity to be heard respecting the serial disclosure and dissemination of his ... deposition testimony.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 22. Nowhere in the complaint does plaintiff allege that defendants failed to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard, nor any facts to support this contention. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1940. Therefore, we will not address this argument. 6 . Our Circuit Court previously has held other comprehensive procedural and remedial schemes to constitute a "special factor” precluding Bivens remedies. See Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223
holding that acceptance of payments under the louisiana state compensation act does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the longshoremens act recognizing a bivens remedy for undocumented immigrants who were subjects of a raid by federal immigration officials reasoning that if a bivens remedy were precluded the present plaintiffs would have no forum in which to seek a remedy for the defendants alleged constitutional violations recognizing the civil service reform act as a special factor precluding a bivens remedy holding that the csra precludes even those bivens claims for which the act prescribes no alternative remedy because it found no inadvertence by congress in omitting the remedy holding the privacy act to constitute a special factor precluding a bivens remedy