a mystery burger is an a t v positive inmate who has been segregated from the general prison population i take medication as treatment for his age i v to prevent it from maturing  his complaint that under the conditions of a segregation he does not receive the same medical treatment as the general prison population and as a result he sometimes misses doses of his medication which will cause his body to build up a but he doesn't indicate why administrative segregation would cause him to missed those as he doesn't allege that the prisoners in administrative segregation are transferred much more frequently than prisoners in the general population and he suggested the transfers in this case are in fact because he needs to see a certain quote so called a druggie specialist so a lot hypothetically what he talks about and he could make out a case for that but why is why failure to be treated i mean i know he speaks in general terms of this but i mean is there any i know this we're not talking a ball probably here but you've got to be some specificity does that not well i've i don't believe that there is a if i understand your question correctly it sounds like you're asking if he's if he's a leisure specific place that he's you know why did he say you know i was supposed to get my medication on x date i get it i supposed to get it again why i didn't get it and the reason i didn't get it because i was being and i was in segregation i got moved from point a point i don't see any allegations of that nature i see very general vague thing three says that he might miss them because he's in administrative segregation and he might have this happen and he's being moved to get him quote so called treated by a so called hiv specialist i don't i don't find any specific allegations that says he missed dosages the fact that he's concerned that he's going to be moved elysee a so called hiv specialist suggests to me anyway that that least the present system recognizes he has h i v and they're having him go to a special them enough like the specialist may not agree with a specialist but there are at least cognizant of his condition help me with this i just i don't see any specificity i don't see any express allegations i'm seeing pretty vague general allegations which even construed liberally you have some any inconvenience being denied any age hiv medication those that could lead to medications resistance due to him having to transfer every three to six months tell me where is the allegation that he didn't receive his h i v medication right well and i try to answer both questions of the same time first as a judge with just with question  the complaint doesn't specifically say that he was he was supposed to go to a certain doctor at a certain time and this and mr receive your dose however it's correct that the prison recognizes that he has a j v which is one of the reasons why he segregated and what he alleges is a big part of his segregation is you have to transfer from prison to prison which the general prison population doesn't have to do yes to what he has to transfer you know different facilities in order to see the so medication as a result of the segregation really says here in i guess it's paragraph two thirty five that he is deprived of everything a regular prison yard prisoner receives such as better doctor he's saying i could be receiving this so so the way i read this and this is that being denied the medication could lead to hiv medication resistance but he doesn't say that he was the guy the medication he sa it's all in the subjective it's all speculative is it your suggestion that under the law because he's a prisoner and we construe his allegations liberally that all he has to do is to say that you know this might happen to me this could happen to me and that's sufficient for the purposes of the prettier prison than a geisha reform act the imminent danger exception is a is a procedural screening mechanism where combined with a liberal construction the  court can look at this and say there is a significant there is an allegation of an imminent threat of serious physical injury so that he should be permitted to proceed without paying the filing fees now once once the screening mechanism is passed it may be that somebody alleges something that is you know completely out of out in the car and left field somewhere any specific allegations but just talks about the possibilities of might what might happen if  know i mean it i'm legit i'm in i'm in the administrative segregation i find that i get dizzy and there i might fall i might hit my head and i kill myself i might have a bruise i might have a concussion is that enough  get you out of administrative segregation based upon imminent physical danger i wouldn't i wouldn't go so far as to say any allegations out of left field but given the liberal construction that's afforded to  perhaps a very smart guy yes yes i think this is my second language some of the examples that you gave earlier though were were held to be sufficient  do you understand the question to the question and that's you can answer i suppose the question is is is it required that he allege that something is is happening to him a will happen doing rather than something could happen well the end isn't that what he has alleged that something cool that happen can be met either by alleging a continued practice that has caused injury to the prisoner or others in the past and the second is an allegation of sufficiently obvious without showing a past injury now in that case what was it issue was the  prisoner had alleged that he was at risk of contracting hiv and hepatitis c however in footnote ten this court stated that the hiv allegations on their own would have been enough here the prison already has v and he's alleging that because of his segregated conditions he's not getting the medication that he needs but please not something that he's not saying he's not getting the medication he's saying that because i don't get all of the question is that he has not alleged a specific instance where he was denied my proposition is that the liberal construction pursued to give in to pro se litigants is enough to find that there's a danger here and at the very least he ought to be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to allege whatever the court may find isn't it so so what you're asking us to do then basically just to construe the law in a way that has not been construed before indicate that the possibility that something might happen is sufficient to meet the requirement under survived it is don't think that's what we're asking t he didn't make a specific allegation that he'd been denied anything and you confirm that but you're saying that the fact that he's inconvenienced by the fact that he might not in the future get things in the way he wants is enough to meet the requirements of age that a fair statement think so the being transferred from one person to another as a result of his conditions of segregation and even if as each himself seems to be knowledge he's going to go see any child be special if that's one of the reasons for the transfer right but he the reason he's transferred is because he's segregated hiv positive prisoners in the general prison population don't have to be transferred to united well some of them don't leave for cases b there is a clear acknowledgement by his own admission that one of the reasons for his transfer is to see as so called hiv specialist and he has not made any allegations that he was denied medication just concerned that it might happen and you're saying that's enough to satisfy this requirement i think i'm almost out of time so the what the allegation is is it may not but he hasn't alleged a specific instance where he has missed those that medication but the complaint has as liberally construed complains that it happens or that he's in danger of it happening i'd like to reserve the right my time for a bit thank you are as may please the court joseph tartakovsky first say to nevada i respectfully submit that mr rivers allegation is not that he's not getting his hiv medication he's saying that he's something about this prison rule result of him getting in a way that he doesn't like it's very different thing his claim has morphed on appeal there's been some words have been juggled in some words that have been of it without any inconvenience he's not getting the drugs without any inconvenience has now become the inconvenience of not getting medication which is sort of odd formulation that you find it inconvenient to get drugs that and what your life depends counsel uses the words missing doses in his brief eleven times mr bieber never use the word missing does not only does not give a specific date that he didn't get the drug he doesn't even say he never got the drug where mr bieber said this rule in the hands of a cruel prison official could be used to inflict damage on his immune system has become that it's contradicted of course by the face of the rule that governs how hiv inmates are treated but i would point you to the word he says if he says that all other inmates receive their medications timely but i don't sentence and the words without any inconvenience i think are the key and what he means by inconvenience is not clear but it has to mean something a fairly common complaint in prison is that they don't like that they get these pills through something called pill called the nurse brings that the nurse has to watch the prisoner swallow it they may not like the time the nurse comes by they may not like there's something about the prescription he seems to have a problem with the fact that he has to be transferred for some so what you're saying is he's not really rather than actual yes a speculative and conclusory as a get it of course it is his burden so anything that speculative conclusory unspecific is on him but we have some there's the text of what he says but we have some other cooperation for instance to district court dismissed didn't find imminent danger and she dismissed this the possibility of a one nine hundred fifty g exception with a single sentence she said not only had he not shown it but that the subject matter of his complaint didn't even pertain to something like missing medication she thought she read this is judge do she read this as being an attack that acts basically an equal protection attack on how they treat hiv which is not hiv infected inmates and even so suppose she missed what he was actually saying as opposed to a counsel saying he had a chance to  she said you're not even saying anything that has to do with him in danger when he moved to amend did he want to add anything about the hiv allegation that he wanted to make this a class action in other words make this even less specific to him he also didn't bring up  in his informal brief before of course i don't think that's what he's alleging but even if supposing you construed at the way counsel wants it would still be insufficient it's still not a plausible claim even under the most liberal construction of the notice pleading standard he's saying that at some point in an eight and a half year period he didn't get medication whose names he can't give he doesn't say when the medication he started he doesn't say it ended he doesn't say how many times he supposedly didn't get it was at one time an eight and half years was it every day for a six month period and he doesn't suggest anything with respect to any symptoms that might have occurred  specific allegations and he or a pattern of misconduct in by the way and his research on tasers does lead case of what imminent danger means they made their head said he was being put with contagious inmates that was not enough the magistrate judge gave him leave to bring it out further he sed he still didn't have enough he objected to the report recommendation so by the time this circuit considered the factual allegations and use of user volunteers that court had three six separate papers from the inmate two of them specifically directed to showing what the i'm a dangerous mystery burger has an alleged that virtually all and as i say again his birth i mean just to give want just one last example i would want to do if you were a malpractise claim against a doctor and you doesn't another word it just right it doesn't matter which one feel right that's right i think that's our position but i think they can say i'm i guess my question to you is have they conceded that that's my reading of what they've said and you'll tell us when it comes up  i gather they have conceded that point now and i think you can see to that three times in their response be they said if if it turns out that coleman goes against us and just because something's on appeal it's still a strike and cast against us he still only have two strikes and both of their twenty j letters they acknowledge it so it was no longer good law that this was in fact always a strike and should be counted against him i think they've left aside a fender minute it's clear that the statute says a strike is a strike so long as the claim twice you can look at the substance of the analysis he says i'm dismissing this case for the following reasons plural the first two paragraphs following that are his immunity analysis then he says further i'm certifying that this is not on on the souter case it's the fact that on the face of the complaint it was clear there was qualified immunity right if it if that weren't if it were not on the face of the complaint we might have a different issue here is that correct that's correct but i think that i think he had independent grounds for dismissing so munity cases would be very close and you could find that a defendant's immunity goes up and the court will hit hear that but what this the issue for this court with respect to interpret judge hitches order is was just hicks saying that you have a potentially meritorious claim but you picked the wrong defendant haven't given immunity problem or was he saying that you've sued you've sued bill souter the clerk of court for forcing you to file a before section one hundred fifteen g can be used as a ground for barring informal pop or a status the district court should conduct a careful examination of the underlying order and the only reason given in the dismissal order in souter was that the name defendants were immune ground which congress likely considered a different ground because prisoners may not know who the who the right people are to sue or what type of relief to seek even though they have been wrong th