three strikes rule there is no sound reason for the court to depart from those rulings now especially because this court has already held that its prior order for anything williams allegations is law the case but should the court choose to review sufficiency of those allegations again they independently require reversal of the district court's decision because williams his claims of prolonged and systematic neglect of his chronic health problems by prison officials it comfortably it within the boundaries of what it means to be in imminent danger under this court's precedents of those prior orders were just  the district court i understand you're saying the same standard applies but just as a matter of law the case doctrine that doesn't dictate that the the result in the letter we have we think that in this case you'd most likely does your  now far before standard of review though were anything other than the novo were deferential to the district court then theoretically we could conclude that i have he was appropriate on appeal but that a reasonable district court question and you could go on i know some expressions do get them to nova review and some do not but why would this be won it gets to novo review rather than recognize the district court closer to the facts of the case and i realize you're going on the construed in that statutory text so yes i think there are there would be an element of discretion say in the eye if he inquiry more generally but with respect to this single question of law this question of whether his allegations fit within the imminent danger framework i recognize which recognize that the district court could go either way on this issue i mean one way to look at that is that when i was confused another way to look at it is that contemplated the district court did have some discretion to go that there was a period of time with when these cases were coming down where some cases indicated that that i'm in the institution was not covered by the statue because talks about a cause of action and and appeal and them and then this was new one and there were a couple letters that we issued during this contemporaneously stating that mandamus wasn't covered by the three strikes situation had changed but i i take your point to be that the situation didn't change and the complaint was still the same the allegations were still the same when it got filed in the district court susan the district i think that's right if you had changed you might have been a different question but the point here is that they did not and that the same allegations of eminent danger have underwritten this case from the very beginning so yes i mean that you know the order says what it says but it certainly could not have s for this court now for a fourth time to say based on the same information and the same complaint and the same allegations women danger in the same case that mr williams suddenly her no will no reason for a change in the record no longer qualifies for this re and we think that you're that court can either base it in terms of imminent danger of excuse me in terms of all of the case or if it is if it's not inclined to do so it should at least keep that in mind that it really it would be it would be an anomaly for the courts and now change its position it's dispositive i'm going back that may be a disease that we all recognize need to be treated and he also says and they won't even listen to me and this is happening to me and so forth but a lot of the stuff that he's got in his complaint you know with section one hundred fifteen g or really with this court's precedents i think you know in mitchell this court also made clear that the all imminent danger allegations would not be subjected to a heightened pleading standard that they would be they would be measured against the same sort of general and very permissive noticed  adequate treatment and we think that that also is clear now yes he could have added more information but we don't think that that's necessary in order to meet such a low bar for relief and that's so in addition to his imminent danger allegations are connected to those claims and we think there are at least three problems of that argument the first i've already mentioned is that mitchell does not require any special pleading burden at the imminent danger stage it's supposed to be a very low bar for relief and this stage it would be right for the court to assess the material has to be a nexus it seems to me between the allegation of imminent danger on the one hand and the relief saw it in the complaint of hepatitis c and prostate cancer that clearly those imminent danger allegations have nothing to do with whether his first amendment rights have been violated  necessarily more detail than a given for that so much more detail would be required but again the question of whether he had alleged with more detail i think is separate from the from judge randolph question which was doesn't have to be a connection i think clearly there does not have to be a connection in this case because claims have no connection to his imminent danger allegations well but i i don't i think what piers randolph is saying is you've got to have a credible claim and even  at some level your honor i have six reasons i'd like to get into it but before i do that i would like to say that like a starter you can sometimes include the mandate rule and i think it's important that that we appreciate that that's not what's going on here  the this court's decision in the in the mandamus of the first appeal i was not a review of the district court system finding on imminent danger it was simply this court in the first instance getting to that issue first and so it's not an explicitly said we take no position on the on the district courts terminations and so it phrased it as determination our position on pre payment fees but it certainly includes this issue so i think that that's a fair reading of that wor but it's also the motion attached to that request the relief the motion is filed at a different date and time the motion is supported by different documents and both i believe you or him and mitchell both trying again i'm not sure that this is that these two reasons so far are sufficient i would point to that but the next question of the law in fact that when i wrote the brief i thought we were focusing mostly on the law of the case and but i do see now that if there's no sophisticated analysis of this question but does seem like most of the courts are applying to novo review of this kind of determination it certainly comes follows with looking at taking your facts from the complaint but if five eighty seven and thirty four nineteen i think that supports the notion that if it's it's uncontested that the court should be more reluctant to apply lower case i don't think any of these factors are necessarily determined of on their own but they  merely required that the claims would pass the equivalent of article three standing in other words that the claims have some connection to the imminent danger that there is a common causation and redress ability  and this minimal screening would it would only mean the case out if every single one of the claims failed so that explains why it wouldn't change the result in that's what has provided a textual hook for the entire structure of the court is built up in cases like butler and mitchell which define the district courts use of its discretionary power under the statu three quick points here are the first council might my friend referred to the ongoing threat issue and i think it's important to separate out the types of ongoing threats that we're talking about here firstly that we have an ongoing threat for purposes of the initial that it's important to separate out that the question of whether or not an ongoing threat from an image from a improperly treated chronic disease is sufficient for imminent danger relieve from the question of whether that needs to be an ongoing threat and subsequent stages of the litigation we think of this court's decision definitively forecloses that argument because in that case this court made clear that the imminent danger the allegations or the question of the imminence of the danger is fixed at the time of the filing of the complaint what happens after the complaint is wholly irrelevant and we think that that would include later stages of the litigation this court and just records must look to the complaint for the allegations for imminent danger and in the context of an impairment in that it will be treated chronic disease the evidence and endanger requirements are satisfied simply by those well by those allegations and second i want to just address a quick factual point my friend refers to mr or mr ms mr williams a statement that he had refused treatment and we refused treatment and we think the rest of his complaint in fact the rest of this case bears that out he clearly was not refusing treatment he was trying to get treatment in any way that he could and we think his i'm sorry for him if i may just make my my last  because effectively it turns the refers to as in a more force and a textual precondition to relief or the imminent danger inquiry and also imposes its requirement at a stage of a prisoner's case where he's unlikely to have any opportunity to remedy it in fact that's precisely what happened here the