Mikeal Glenn Stine v. B. Von Blankensee;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKEAL GLENN STINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
B. VON BLANKENSEE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16393
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00187-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JAN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16393
§ 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.”); Acosta-
Huerta 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 of 2 --