Stine v. No Named Defendants

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/23/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01293-GPG
MIKEAL GLENN STINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. JOHN OLIVER, Warden ADX,
MR. JULIAN, Associate Warden ADX,
MR. C. PORRO, Unit Manager ADX,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (Agency),
JOHN DOE, “UNKNOWN PERSONS,” and
CLAY COOK, Supervising Attorney ADX,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Mikeal Glenn Stine is in the custody of the United States Bureau of
Prisons and currently is incarcerated at ADX Florence. Plaintiff has submitted a
pleading titled, “Petition Pursuant to Court Order Seeking to File a Pro-Se Action.”
Plaintiff has been instructed on the procedure he must follow to file an action in
this Court. For the Court to consider an action filed by Plaintiff, he must both comply
with the restrictions he is subject to under Stine v. Lappin, et al., No. 07-cv-01839-WYDKLM, ECF No. 344 (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2009), and assert violations of his constitutional
rights that merit a waiver of the restrictions he is subject to under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff contends he does not have access to the documents necessary to
comply with restrictions set forth in Case No. 07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM. Nothing in
Plaintiff’s Petition demonstrates that he requested the necessary documents and prison
officials denied his requests. The Inmate Bulletin that Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit
does not support any argument that Plaintiff has been denied a request for documents

he may need to proceed with an action in this Court. ECF No. 1 at 4. Per the Bulletin,
Plaintiff is allowed to have as his personal property legal materials for active and
prospective cases. Id. at 5. Plaintiff asserts only that his filings from past cases have
been destroyed. He does not indicate he has asked and been denied a copy of the
filings restrictions stated in Case No. 07-cv-01839 or other required documents he must
submit when requesting leave to proceed in an action in this case. The Petition,
therefore, will be denied and the action dismissed.
The Court also 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 Plaintiff files a notice of appeal he must pay the full $505 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 Petition is denied and the action is dismissed without
prejudice for the reasons stated above. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

23rd

day of

June

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

2