mcfadden requested treatment the state of signs and symptoms hepatitis and i'm wondering why that doesn't preclude a deliberate indifference claim i mean it might might still constantly monitoring first the record indicate that doc had conclusions otherwise that they approved him for treatment and that they denied that treatment but there is a conflict in their own record but it definitely even assuming that mcfadden didn't require treatment in february two thousand and fifteen and that they were monitoring him that was a year and a half before his nd amended complaint and there is nothing in the record that the judge how they were monitoring him or that the just that they were continuing to by a plea determined that he was in a candidate recruitment moreover they decided to treat him re month after his nd amended complaint so perhaps down the line they may be able to argue  did i miss something and know your honor so the latest medical record that we have in the record from february two thousand and fifteen got in alleges that it was over ten million at some point in two thousand and fifteen and opposition brought up in your brief started receiving treatment in january two thousand and seventeen but this in no way negates imminent danger that can be found in a prior complaint nor does it u danger existed at the time of mcfadden's nd amended complaint and she's also explained why is a tenement hep c claim was viable and shouldn't have been dismissed was spontaneous because it was at least colorable and at the very least as to damages i will now because purportedly has hepatitis c claims he is not viable and therefore the imminent danger is not dispositive in what matters is the fight that we have that claim on the merits and also intends to briefly address imminent danger arising from his retaliation claim and answer any questions about that or about the merits of his three other claims dismissal respond to a nothing and reach twelve b six just to defendants primary arguments about complaint and that's simply not what this court has recognized that in harris the inmate filed an original complaint and then filed an amended complaint and what this court considered was imminent danger at the time of the original complaint in other words if imminent danger exist at the time of a complaint than the mere fact that a litigant later filed an amendment doesn't wipe away i have peace status and restart the clock so that imminent danger needs to be proved all over again harris looks after the argument is simply not correct this court is repeatedly recognized chambers harris in a number of other cases but the idea of t determination the imminent danger determination under section one hundred and fifteen g b is analytical independent of and prior to any determination of the merits of changes explicitly holds that section one one hundred and fifteen dollars g quote is not a vehicle for determining the merits of a claim on it or concerns only a scope threshold procedural question will separate the provisions are directed at screening out the suits early on one minute instead the i s p status is only precluded if the allegations of imminent danger are ridiculous or delusional or entirely conclusory as chivas explains meaning a threadbare recital of the elements of a cause of action in other words if there is no factually plausible basis to believe there's been a danger and it absolutely is here even if one is skeptical of the merits of the claim which one should not be there's absolutely allegations imminent danger arising from the rapidly increasing viral load at the time of the nd amended complaint to the defendant's attempt to argue that the nexus requirement question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute so too with the highest p status finally retaliation and we've extensively covered this in the briefing is also a viable basis for imminent thousand and twelve amended in two thousand and fifteen amended two thousand and seventeen in two thousand and twelve the imminent danger instant non treatment to imminent danger and i have piece status not as to injunctive relief on the merits of the claim so i think miss miss jones was explaining this but imminent danger is harrison chivas demonstrate can arise from at the time of any complaint and congress in asking section one hundred and fifteen cheney and his court interpret ing it has been very strict and said what matters is imminent danger at the time of the complaint and if imminent danger exist but then dissipates before the complaint is filed then  door now of course if treatment has been provided and a complete cure has occurred then injunctive relief is no longer warranted although the claim still viable as a basis of damages but as to imminent danger and i have p status what matters is imminent danger at the time of the complaint not before the complaint and not after the complete whereas for the merits what matters is at the time of resolution injunctive relief is not available of course if the york attorney general's office in general the new york state prisons are resistant to communication so we have spoken with him not recently but we have been writing  representation and i actually a former clinic students who graduate who graduated two years ago is with a big firm now and has contact with us about potentially taking on some of our clients  yes we'd be we obviously can't make any guarantees but we in general and certainly in this case would we do what we can to assist us in finding counsel and and frequently when counsel is appointed  simply here regardless of the complaint that is considered there's an insufficient allegation if the court is inclined to resolve the question of which complaint did matter here for the purpose of imminent danger now been it should hold that the rd amended complaint was the operative one plate was the only one that was ever served on anything that the only one that ever had the he doesn't believe he's getting adequately treated for bloggers and that under the liberal standard that applies simply excuse him paying money we all know he doesn't have one minute imminent danger i think that if there were allegations that treatment was required and it was having an effect on health and yet that's a loosely but here what we have is documents show that he was being actively monitor and tests were taken to monitor the extent of any of his liver function and so on and so the fact that they have them suggests that there was no imminent danger as of the original you know if the court is to look at the original complaint i think that the allegation just simply is not right of the level of him to be injured or under under the president that we have and  more than monitoring that unless unless you want to point me to something that says you know that would not be appropriate well i think that the frame the answer this way which is t the record your honor and i and i don't know that as a factual cut my concern here is whether he's got a claim that once approved for treatment the failure to get it to him would be enough to provide for him for a reasonable during that period two thousand and nine to two thousand and fourteen when it remained under three point five percent your p c extended he was in imminent danger from not getting more than monitoring during that period yes your honor for that basis what's the fact pleaded that would admit that as a reasonable inference your honor the fact he  pled not only is specific viral load but in two thousand and four when he was approved for treatment he the viral load was only over one million in two thousand and four when he was of patients will not feel ill of hepatitis c patients will not feel ill but all the while their liver is degenerating and the disease is getting worse and that's exactly what happened here time went on and then m minute very briefly just to i think we can keep on going over the timeline a few times but but just to clarify that absolutely there was a period between approval of treatment two thousand four because apparently his viral load was over a one million and then it fluctuated a bit but by two thousand and thirteen began to increase rapidly and by the time he filed his complaint in november of two thousand and fifteen as a original complaint would argue there's imminent danger but he doesn't have to depend on that we primarily point to going to enter by the time of the nd amended complaint when his viral load was over ten million and that's october of tw doc's own only statement that we will monitor him and he doesn't current currently qualify for treatment is in february of two thousand and fifteen and so eighteen months earlier so october twenty six thousand is the time of the nd amendment complaint he says it's getting worse and worse and worse it's life threatening my liver is degenerating i mean constant pain and suffering and then after october's two thousand six hundred he receives treatment three months later in january of two thousand and seventeen so it's a judge rogers question about when he was approved we don't know but in any event said that the fact that he received treatment with three months provides compelling reason to believe that he was in imminent danger three months earlier in october of two thousand and sixteen and we think he has a he's easily met his burden even in november of two thousand and fifteen when all he needs to do is show notice pleading and all favorable inferences in his favor given his increasing viral load and and symptoms that he was  yes absolutely the defense argued that there's no personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the defendant's list of those claims haven't been served and it's true those defendants haven't been served but this court has repeatedly and we say these cases in the reply brief a nd circuit to state their position to protect their interests but they didn't choose to do so here obviously that doesn't preclude them from you know moving to dismiss on the pleadings under twelve b six or filing for summary judgment but it is absolutely before this court to determine