From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons Designation & Sentence Computation Unit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jun 12, 2014
571 F. App'x 352 (5th Cir. 2014)

Summary

finding that the plaintiff failed to establish imminent danger arising from claims of inadequate protection by federal prison officials in Colorado and further noting he "also failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his [pending] claims against BOP defendants in Texas"

Summary of this case from Malloy v. Cnty. of Montgomery

Opinion

No. 14-10027

06-12-2014

MIKEAL GLEN STINE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS DESIGNATION AND SENTENCE COMPUTATION UNIT; JOSE SANTANA, Chief; LISA AUSTIN, Head Designator; DELBERT SAWERS, Chief; UNKNOWN PERSONS, Defendants-Appellees


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-4253

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Mikeal Glen Stine, federal prisoner # 55436-098, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court dismissed Stine's civil rights complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), determining that Stine had not plausibly alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, and certifying that Stine's appeal was not taken in good faith.

By his IFP motion, Stine challenges the district court's certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry "is limited to whether the appeal involves 'legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).'" Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).

Stine's assertion that the defendants assigned him to Administrative Maximum United States Penitentiary (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, against the sentencing court's order is without merit. The court merely recommended that Stine be kept apart from members of the Aryan Brotherhood (AB), but the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) retained control over the place of Stine's imprisonment. See Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2390-91 (2011).

Our review of Stine's extensive history of scurrilous and frivolous litigation confirms that he has filed more than three prior civil actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See § 1915(g). Stine nonetheless contends that he may proceed IFP in the district court and on appeal because he has pled that he faces imminent danger of serious bodily injury at the hands of prison gangs, particularly his former associates in the AB. See Vandiver v. Vasbinder, 416 F. App'x 560, 562 (6th Cir. 2011) (§ 1915(g) imposes is a "pleading requirement").

Even with the benefit of liberal construction, Stine's bare assertions that he has been attacked or threatened at unspecified times in the past by other inmates do not rise to the level of plausibly pleading that he was in "imminent danger of serious physical injury" when he filed his complaint or his motion to appeal IFP. See § 1915(g); Baños v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 (5th Cir. 1998). Moreover, Stine has been making indistinguishable claims of imminent danger since at least 2007, and federal courts in Colorado have rejected them based on evidence showing that Stine is adequately isolated and protected from other inmates at ADX. See, e.g., Stine v. Wiley, No. 06-CV-2105, 2007 WL 201251, 2-3 (D. Colo. Jan. 27, 2007) (reciting evidence that Stine was "under supervision at all times, and not allowed to move within the institution without some form of supervision and not allowed unmonitored personal contact with staff or other inmates"); Stine v. Lappin, No. 07-CV-1839 2008 WL 3974361, 4-8 (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 2008) (rejecting assertions of new evidence and noting that Stine made his additional claims in disregard of a prior warning against "attempts to inundate the Court with baseless filings"); Stine v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-CV-1652, 2010 WL 3276196, 2 (D. Colo. Aug. 17, 2010) (rejecting Stine's claims of imminent danger under § 1915(g) after prison officials attested that he was adequately protected). Stine has not plausibly pled that conditions have changed so as to leave him unprotected.

Stine has also failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his claims against the BOP defendants in Texas, because they have no control of conditions at ADX and because Stine has no right to be assigned to any particular prison. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976).

Because Stine has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue regarding the district court's certification, his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Further, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous because the facts relevant to Stine's IFP motion are inextricably intertwined with the merits of his appeal of the district court's ruling that he is barred under § 1915(g) and does not plausibly plead imminent danger. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.


Summaries of

Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons Designation & Sentence Computation Unit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jun 12, 2014
571 F. App'x 352 (5th Cir. 2014)

finding that the plaintiff failed to establish imminent danger arising from claims of inadequate protection by federal prison officials in Colorado and further noting he "also failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his [pending] claims against BOP defendants in Texas"

Summary of this case from Malloy v. Cnty. of Montgomery

finding that the plaintiff failed to establish imminent danger arising from claims of inadequate protection by federal prison officials in Colorado and further noting he "also failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his [pending] claims against BOP defendants in Texas"

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Brooks

denying IFP status on appeal where plaintiff "failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his claims against the BOP defendants in Texas"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Passini

rejecting claim of imminent danger because the prisoner "failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his claims against the BOP defendants in Texas"

Summary of this case from Webb v. Davis

rejecting claim of imminent danger because the prisoner "failed to plausibly plead any connection between the alleged imminent danger in Colorado and his claims against the BOP defendants in Texas"

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Massenburge

In Stine v. Frisk, Plaintiff alleged that "Frisk told several Pelican Bay SHU inmates in 2012 that all the plaintiffs were snitches - this info was communicated to members of the Aryan Brotherhood and Mexican Mafia that resulted in attacks on Pinson and Stine by armed inmates at ADX Florence who continue to threaten to kill them both, are housed near them, and are still armed."

Summary of this case from Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
Case details for

Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons Designation & Sentence Computation Unit

Case Details

Full title:MIKEAL GLEN STINE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 12, 2014

Citations

571 F. App'x 352 (5th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Pinson v. Santana

(citing Pettus, 554 F.3d at 297-98)). The Court's nexus analysis in Stine was affirmed by the United States…

Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

There is no question that Plaintiff has accumulated more than "three strikes" for purposes of § 1915(g).…