You're viewing Docket Item 3 from the case Stine v. Berkebile. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-02537-LTB Document 3 Filed 09/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02537-BNB

MIKEAL GLENN STINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, and



Defendants.

DENIAL OF PETITION

Plaintiff, Mikeal Glenn Stine, is in the custody of the United States Bureau of

Prisons (BOP) and currently is incarcerated at ADX Florence. Mr. Stine, acting pro se,

has filed the following: (1) “Petition Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File a Pro

Se Action”; (2) copy of the recommendation in Case No. 07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM that

sets forth Mr. Stine’s filing restrictions; (3) Verified Prisoner Complaint; (4) letter from

retired District Judge Roger G. Strand; (5) transcript of a sentencing and supervised

release hearing in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas; (6) copy of an opinion entered in a case from the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida; (7) copy of an opinion entered in a case in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; (8) declaration that is a

restatement of Mr. Stine’s claims; (9) sworn declaration by Jeremy Pinson; (10) citations

to other cases that involve the use of chemical agents in a prison; (11) history of prior

Case 1:13-cv-02537-LTB Document 3 Filed 09/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

lawsuits that resulted in a decision against Mr. Stine; (12) declaration by Mr. Stine that

this petition to proceed pro se is taken in good faith; (13) letters from investigative

services; and (14) list of cases involving Mr. Stine.

Based on the following findings, Mr. Stine will be denied leave to proceed with

this action.

The information Mr. Stine is required to state in the Petition Pursuant to Court

Order is very specific. The Petition is to include a statement advising the Court if any

defendant to the lawsuit was a party to, or any way involved in, any prior lawsuit that Mr.

Stine has filed and, if so, in what capacity. Mr. Stine must list separately all lawsuits he

has filed in any federal or state court in which he was a party, and include the following:

(1) the name and citation of the case; (2) the jurisdiction; (3) his involvement in the case;

(4) the status of the case; and (5) the disposition of each case.

Mr. Stine also must list (1) all federal and state cases in which a judgment was

rendered against him, and (2) all federal and state cases in which judgment was entered

in his favor, if any. In each list, he must include the citation of each case, the amount of

the judgment, and if and why any judgment remains outstanding.

The Court has reviewed the documents Mr. Stine has filed and finds that he has

not complied with the requirements of his filing restrictions under Stine v. Lappin, et al.,

No. 07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM, Doc. No. 344 at 30-32(D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2009). Mr. Stine

fails to state the capacity of Defendant Berkebile in each prior suit in which he was

named. Also, part of Mr. Stine’s filing restriction requires that he “shall not file . . . other

pleadings pertaining to the Petition unless directed to do so.” Case No. 07-cv-01839-

WYD-KLM, Doc. 344 at 31. Mr. Stine’s declaration submitted along with the Complaint

is a restatement of the claims he asserts in the Complaint.

2

Case 1:13-cv-02537-LTB Document 3 Filed 09/19/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Stine’s request to proceed with the proposed complaint, ECF

No. 1, is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of September , 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3