571 F. App'x 352
5th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Mikeal Glen Stine, a federal prisoner, sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal after the district court dismissed his civil‑rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (three‑strikes) and certified the appeal was not in good faith.
- The district court found Stine failed to plausibly allege he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the complaint or the IFP motion.
- Stine alleged he was assigned to ADX Florence against sentencing court recommendation and faced imminent danger from prison gangs, especially the Aryan Brotherhood (AB).
- The sentencing court had only recommended separation from AB; the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) controls prisoner placement.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed Stine’s extensive history of frivolous filings and prior dismissals under § 1915(g) and noted prior Colorado district court findings that Stine was under close supervision at ADX and adequately protected.
- Stine also sued BOP defendants in Texas; the court found no plausible connection between danger at ADX and those Texas defendants because they lack control over ADX placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stine may proceed IFP on appeal despite § 1915(g) strikes | Stine alleged imminent danger from prison gangs at ADX, allowing IFP despite prior strikes | Prior frivolous dismissals trigger § 1915(g); Stine did not plausibly plead imminent danger | Denied: Stine failed to plausibly allege imminent danger; IFP on appeal denied |
| Whether the sentencing court’s recommendation controlled BOP placement | The sentencing court’s recommendation required separation and implied placement protection | BOP has authority over prisoner placement; sentencing court’s recommendation is not binding | Held for defendants: BOP controls placement; Tapia confirms sentencing court cannot dictate institution assignment |
| Whether Texas BOP defendants can be sued for conditions at ADX in Colorado | Stine alleged BOP defendants in Texas were responsible for his danger at ADX | Defendants lack control over ADX conditions; no right to placement at particular prison | Held for defendants: No plausible connection; Texas defendants not responsible |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous/improperly certified | Stine contends certification was incorrect and appeal raises nonfrivolous issues | Certification was proper because issues lacked arguable merit under Howard/Baugh standards | Appeal dismissed as frivolous; certification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for appellate IFP certification review)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (IFP appeal requires nonfrivolous legal points)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (sentencing court’s recommendations do not control BOP placement)
- Baños v. O'Guin, 144 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 1998) (§ 1915(g) imminent danger pleading requirement)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) (no constitutional right to placement in a particular prison)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (same: prisoner has no liberty interest in assignment to particular institution)