of the three strikes rule under the informal popper statute and we submit that there is not before the court to consolidate appeals and when david meyers asking whether or run what basis he intended to proceed with these appeals he answered that he was receiving inadequate medication and psychiatric care which resulted in him hearing voices telling him to kill himself and that he was refused protection by prison officials to stop her and me on that basis we submit that he should be allowed to proceed and this court at his appeal and in the district court below without creeping the filing fees as required by the street three strikes rule and we believe this is simply a matter of plain text of the statute as the court knows it says in the context of this clause of the statute and no bench up prisoner bring a civil action or peel a judgment reading wouldn't we be permitting three strike prisoners to just file women less will be going back to limit lists filings if all they have to do is say the magic words imminent danger i don't think that's the case because st they actually do you have to prove our peak at least that there is an eminent danger a serious physical injury and we can see as the point but the question is and when you apply a standard of plausibility to the complaint it's totally conclusory and also  delusional and what it says it just with out supply any particulars whatsoever he says conspiring to commit everybody in the whole prison is somehow conspiring to commit sexual abuse murder death threats serious injury to him and that's what the complaint essentially says if we approve that believe at least one of the parties here has conceded that the eminent danger standard is met by mr meyers pleading and further there is no nexus requirement the nd circuit home nexus require little bit of a river herring because what it what it means is is simply one of those factors that can be it's not a rewriting of a statute it's a question of whether it's one of those factors that can be a year in judging whether compliant meets the exception  and so no this doesn't open any floodgates and this is a simple gateway exception that congress wrote into the statute nothing and the legislative history sorry what is the reading of the text of the statute what is the purpose of the eminent danger exception it is there to allow people who are under eminent danger of serious physical injury to bring to be able to  without prepaying their filing for these someone who already has three strikes correct there's that limit exception if they're under imminent danger yes of serious physical injury yes to protect them from serious physical injury there's an exception even if they've they've gotten their three strikes but there's an exception to protect exactly and remember these are pro se litigants so they may not file the right thing right they may not be done right i'm wondering if the we can understand from the text of the statute that the exception is to protect the prisoner when they're in danger of physical injury and isn't the exception limited to cases where they're asking the court to protect them from the physical injury they're not just saying my life's in danger please hear my you know civil suit about something else they're saying my life's in danger please help me protect me from that danger and if that's what congressman and also make policy argument that they put this hearing to make sure if there is any threat of any sort even if they need to talk about policy arguments but they might be helpful but i'm just trying to understand from the text of the statute why why there's an exception the congress could have said you know three strikes and you're out but they didn't miss a three strikes and you're out unless you're in danger and then you can go to the court because we want to protect you from that danger while they said well and then you can go to court your interpretation what purpose does it serve to let someone who has three strikes come into court and say i'm in danger please hear my lawsuit about something unrelated to the danger what purpose does that but why would congress want to allow that is not arbitrary if the person has three strikes we don't know that there is no written access requirement in the statute rule because anybody could essentially come in with a complaint that states in conclusory fashion that the whole prison news is conspiring against me now is that a stammer pleading standards which i think apply here to this comply some some specificity should be require some you know he's been filing cases for so many look for us for such a long period it's hard to believe that anything is emma and it just it's the imminent danger of the harmony it's just a kitchen sink approach everybody in the prison is out to get me in every conceivable way well if if that condom boilerplate suffice invoke re exception here then i wonder whether we're just repealing essential providing a pathway to do exactly what congress did not want done there has to be some issued his consolidated well the matters the appellant doctor that additional appeals and then by my count there were ten additional appeals dealing with serious bodily harm you would be specific about it it would be the subject of a single complaint that wouldn't be in the complaints spread all over the landscape your honor i believe that  standard is independent and was a provided in the notice to the court when asked how he planned to proceed given his three strikes status i also believe as we pointed out in our brief that far particularly surgeon from the department of justice representing the commissioner of social security as every court to address this question is held imminent danger exception to the p l o raise three strikes rule is a safety valve to prevent impending harms follows that to invoke the exception of a person or most allege and nexus between the claims of the complaint and the imminent danger alleged otherwise as you've discussed it's just a rule but  test i don't see that at all i just think it's one of the fact is the courts can use or not use to assess the ultimate question of imminent danger and seriousness of bodily harm we certainly agree with that and i would also point out one of the arguments we heard this morning is that there's no need for this interpretation of the imminent harm exception because the courts can always dismiss a complaint ah best on frivolous right exactly your honor so congress provided the three strikes provision as an additional tool that could weed out claims even earlier than are frivolousness review which is in the end the merits review even though it's pretty clear in cases like th claim has no relationship to the three strikes rule and the other thing they say is that the i want to address they say that our rule would allow prison officials to create open season not inmates and just do to them anything that they want to do because they wouldn't have the money to file suits well that's not correct as we pointed out in our brief section one hundred and fifteen before i have peace statute provides very clearly that if a prisoner has no fun that they can file a suit this doesn't have anything to do with that they don't have fun something bad is happening to them they can file a suit even if there is no nexus to their imminent  danger final thing i would say is that this court in the chase vs mouat case and our understanding of the purpose and meaning of the eminent danger exception chase did that in the context of holding that an imminent danger must must exist at the time the complaint is filed as opposed to prior to when the complaint is filed because if it's just prior then again it's not necessary to allow the suit to proceed to remedy any kind of imminent harm so you've already sort of gone down the road to accepting what the purpose and function of the as term is in the statute and we're just asking you to follow on with that and do the same thing here  was unpublished but it was certainly reflected the considered judgment of three judges on this court and every every other court to address that question has arrived at the same result and also every court to address the question presented here right which is whether the imminent danger exception requires an access has also arrived at that result and finally i would just hear i think is to give so meaning to those adjectives and that exception and also not just to consider the plaintiffs before us but the reason for the exception which was just basic considerateness to other litigants who are calling upon the st crowded out somebody who is filing thirty now you know you have to consider other people so we completely agree with that i would just notice i went back and looked through some of his claims that the court has dismissed in april of two thousand and nineteen the court dismissed as frivolous a claim he said that the person had violent his th amendment rights by giving him stale honey bun so i think that's indicative of exactly what you're talking about the final point i would make is that counsel says that adopting our understanding of the exception in my or the court in these hearings and things and judge will consider i think you've answered that by showing that this is really in most in almost all cases you just look at the would know if the purpose of the gateway which was for a quick disposition of repetitive as a mini trial you look at the complaint so exactly and i think even in this case for the state of pallies i'd like to make three quick points echoing mr starr's argument and some of the comments from the panel st this court's task in this case as in all statutory interpretation cases is to determine what congress meant by looking to the words that he used in the context in which to use them and with the brought up the background of the broader statute as a whole and here that well trodden path of statutory interpretation leads to an obvious conclusion by carving out a narrow set of cases from the three strikes rule congress intended to ensure that the courthouse doors would remain open to prisoners seeking and you do shall remedy for an imminent serious physical harm reading the imminent danger exception to include to require a nexus between the injury claimed and the judicial really sought is fully consistent with that in tat mr meyers believes that congress meant something different and i think this goes to judge washings question in his telling congress didn't care whether the action the president brings relates to the injuries he claims as long as he can show an imminent serious physical danger you can bring any cl whatsoever against any defendant at all but there is nothing in the imminent danger exception in the strikes in the three strikes one more broadly or in the p r a that suggest the congress was attempting to make a distinction between classes of l s rather by including the eminent danger exception in the three strikes rule as a narrow exception to the general bar set by that role congress is endeavoring to provide an exception for a particular class of cl not a particular class of claim it's specifically those and which a prisoner was seeking in judicial remedy for serious imminent physical harm and for that reason it makes perfect sense to understand the imminent danger exception  to require that the prisoner that the injury on which the president predicate his entitle meant to come through the safety exception to be traceable to the action that he seeks to bring before the court  the nd point i'd like to make is the point that mr stossel concluded with which is that the practical import of this understanding of the imminent danger exception does not create the complications that my friend on the other side suggests contrary to mr myers his state which is also delusional in nature your honor i think that the question of what that substance of the allegations in the complaint are is a little bit of a separate question and whether th clearly this if i says to invoke the the exception then what we're doing is essential a saying that you can plead the words of the statute without honor as my friend on the other side noted and we did concede in this case that the nexus requirement was met and i think our our purpose in doing that was to focus the court's attention on the traceability between the injury claims and the suit itself i recognize of course on the connection between the injury claimed that was the reason that we it is no even given there were thank you leave liberal construction and there's no difficult question who are here all you have to do is explain in plain english what the danger areas is give some give something and give some specificity sophisticate to it your honor i think he did provide a certain amount of specificity he talked about you know not being protected by his like in many cases involving cleaning particular protectively prosaic pleadings it's maybe a fine line between you know when a pleading is so fancy all that it doesn't meet the whole standard and i think in this case you know again we have conceded here that the nexus requirement is met because there agree with you that even whoever gateway well your honor i think i think that to your point the nexus requirement adds to the notion of imminent threat and imminent danger and what it ties is explain what kinds of cases this congress intended to allow to go through that and let this be history of pleading has of history of filing lawsuits has been day after day week after week month after month and nothing has happened and to hack in this you know we have a precedent circuit precedent saying that evidence is constructed or imminence is judged at the time of the complaint and here you have what we jointly agree is a conclusory and fanciful complaint and a history of complaints which are spread all over and strewn all over the landscape and to say that something like that meets the gateway exception there's nothing him alone about somebody who's been litigating this that the other three years and there's nothing claims being brought over and over and over again and and burdening the attorney general's office and the federal courts and everything with saying for the st fifteen of twenty or twenty three a time that something is frivolous your honor i think i agree with you are in complete agreement about the kinds he says the congress intended to go through the gateway and we're also in agreement that there should be no trial in a trial or significant factual development and i think for that reason of course th determination has to be made based on the complaint i think to the extent that there's any disagreement it's only on you know whether his complaint is sort of yes fanciful and conclusory but sufficient enough to meet the standard and  meritless i don't disagree with you at all in any way and i certainly don't disagree with you that the nexus requirement speaks to exactly what congress was trying to do when it when it opened and narrow a way for what is otherwise a significant bar to this kind of damon meyers a severely mentally ill man he also has a number of significant as a call and one of his claims and asking to file as a pianist choir was that he was not being definition a number of prior sit in adequate medical care is an th amendment claim the federal courts are open to it but after all these years and at the minimum a claim of an adequate medication and whatnot has not succeeded so far as i know and danger of serious physical harm and that's the it maybe it could have been player but it wasn't play judge mackinson in this case i realize we may not have the idea