Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00259-BNB
02-08-2012
MIKEAL GLENN STINE, Plaintiff, v. MR. K. NEWTON, Director Health Services, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, "JOHN DOE," Director BOP, DR. CHRISTOPHER WILSON, ADX, and "JOHN DOE" PHARMACIST, Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Mikeal Glenn Stine, is in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons and currently is incarcerated at ADX Florence. Originally, Mr. Stine, acting pro se, initiated this action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District of Columbia). On January 10, 2012, the District of Columbia, finding lack of proper venue, transferred the case to this Court. The Court must construe Mr. Stine's Complaint liberally because he is a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se litigant's advocate. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
The Court has reviewed the Complaint. The claims Mr. Stine asserts were addressed and dismissed by the Court in Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 11-cv- 02665-LTB (D. Colo. Oct. 28, 2011) (unpublished). Mr. Stine filed an appeal, which is pending before the Tenth Circuit. See Stine v. U.S. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 11-1504 (10th Cir. Filed Nov. 3, 2011).
Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed as frivolous or malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). The Court may consult its own records to determine whether a pleading repeats pending or previously litigated claims. See Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1972). The Court has examined its records and is satisfied that the claims are repetitive of the claims Mr. Stine asserted in Case No. 11-cv-02665-LTB.
The Court further notes that Mr. Stine also is subject to the filing restrictions entered in Stine v. Lappin, et al., No. 07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM at Doc. Nos. 344 and 350 (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2009) (unpublished). Mr. Stine has failed to comply with these restrictions.
Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr. Stine files a notice of appeal he must pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed with prejudice as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma paupers on appeal is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT