IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02665-LTB 

MIKEAL GLENN STINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

DR. CHRISTOPHER WILSON, ADX,

DR. DAVID ALLRED, Clinical Director,

BLAKE DAVIS, Warden, ADX,

MR. MUNSON, Associate Warden, ADX,

A. OSAGIE, Physician Assistant, ADX,

MR. SMITH, Assistant, Administrative Health Service, and

JOHN DOE, Unknown Defendants, 

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The matter before the Court is the “Verified Motion to Reconsider the Courts [sic]

Order of Dismissal Under Rule 59(e) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ‘With Good

Cause,’ with Expedited Consideration” that Plaintiff, Mikeal Glenn Stine, a pro se

prisoner litigant, filed on November 7, 2011. Mr. Stine is in the custody of the United

States Bureau of Prisons and currently is incarcerated at ADX in Florence, Colorado. 

Mr. Stine seeks reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal and the Judgment entered on

October 28, 2011. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Mr. Stine is

proceeding pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the

Court will deny the Motion. 

Case 1:11-cv-02665-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

 A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the

district court of that adverse judgment, may “file either a motion to alter or amend the

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).” Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243

(10th Cir. 1991). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within

twenty-eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court

will consider Mr. Stine’s Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) because it was

filed within twenty-eight days after the dismissal and judgment were entered in this

action on October 28, 2011. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that a motion to

reconsider should be construed as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) when it is filed within the

ten-day limit (limit effective prior to December 1, 2009) set forth under Rule 59(e)). 

The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening

change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to

correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does,

204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the

court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. Id. (citing

Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243). 

In the Motion, Mr. Stine concedes he has not complied with the sanctions he is

subject to under Stine v. Lappin, et al., No. 07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM, Doc. No. 344 (D.

Colo. Sept. 1, 2009). He requests a waiver of the sanctions because he does not have

the funds to obtain the necessary court documents that contain the information he is

required to submit to the Court when seeking permission to file a new case. The Court

is not responsible for Mr. Stine’s inability to comply with the restrictions set forth in Case

Case 1:11-cv-02665-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

No. 07-cv-01839 and will not waive the requirements of the sanctions. Mr. Stine also

was informed in Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 11-cv-00109-WJM-CBS, Doc. No.

9 (D. Colo. filed Jan. 14, 2001), that the Court would not make special efforts in the

future to address his claims of imminent danger of serious physical harm if he did not

comply with the terms of the sanction stated in Case No. 07-cv-01839-WYD.

Nonetheless, Mr. Stine has alternatives to address his medical issue. He

concedes that he is allowed two medications per month from the pharmacy. He does

not claim that he is unable to replace one of the medications with Omeprazole (a proton

pump inhibitor used for reflux disease) or that without either medication he currently

receives he would be in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Moreover, Mr. Stine

does not describe with any specificity how he used the Mylanta II/Maalox Plus on a

regular basis during September and October 2011 but still did not receive relief from

either the Mylanta or the Maalox. He only states that the Mylanta II/Maalox Plus was

completely ineffective. Mr. Stine, therefore, fails to assert specific fact allegations that

the provision of the Mylanta 11/Maalox Plus by prison staff in place of Omeprazole is a

“pattern of misconduct evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” 

Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003).

In further support of Mr. Stine’s failure to state imminent serious physical injury

based on a pattern of misconduct by prison staff, the Court notes, as it did in the Order

of Dismissal, that Mr. Stine attempts to blame the BOP for incidents that are no more

than his refusal to comply with prison policies and procedures and to take responsibility

for his own personal needs. The Court further notes that Mr. Stine has a history of filing

Case 1:11-cv-02665-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

false pleadings and inundating the Court with meritless and frivolous filings. See Case

No. 07-cv-01839-WYD-KLM, Doc. No. 344 at 23.

The Court, therefore, will deny Mr. Stine’s Motion to Reconsider because he fails

to demonstrate that the Court misapprehended the facts, his position, or the controlling

law and that reinstatement of this action is deserving. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Stine’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 10) filed on

November 7, 2011, is denied. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 1:11-cv-02665-LTB Document 13 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4