IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10027

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:*

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.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10027 Document: 00512662214 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2014
No. 14-10027

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 

2

 Case: 14-10027 Document: 00512662214 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2014
No. 14-10027

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.

3

 Case: 14-10027 Document: 00512662214 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/12/2014