MIKEAL STINE V. B. VON BLANKENSEE, No. 20-16393 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIKEAL GLENN STINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-16393 D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00187-DCB MEMORANDUM* B. VON BLANKENSEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2021** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Mikeal Glenn Stine appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. In his opening brief, Stine fails to raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the district court’s denial of Stine’s request for a preliminary injunction regarding his medication and medical devices. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); AcostaHuerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived). To the extent Stine raises a request for a preliminary injunction regarding his prison account, we do not consider his contentions because they were not raised in his motion for a preliminary injunction before the district court. See Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments made for the first time on appeal and supported by facts not before the district court are waived). AFFIRMED. 2 20-16393

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.