fee in solitary confinement you're not allowed to work so you can't earn money and save up to pay the fee and he doesn't have the kinds of relationships with friends or family such that he can borrow the money so he filed and i have pe district court deny that petition finding making to finding number one mr wallace has three strikes that is three cases that have been dismissed as frivolous malicious or for failure to stay clean and the district court also found that mr is not under imminent danger of serious physical injury because both of those findings are incorrect this court should vacate and remand the judgment and mr wallace offers three arguments as to why  those findings were incorrect and if we prevail on any one of the three the correct course would be to vacate remand or the first argument is that mr wallace is in fact under an imminent danger of serious physical injury solely because he is in solitary confinement and i believe our brief in the end of his brief spend a lot of time explaining how solitary confinement itself increases the risk to any inmate mr wallace included of  self harm of self mutilation or suicide and that risk has to be understood is imminent because under this court's precedents and i'm thinking of louis freeh sullivan imminence is understood reasonably the imminence can't be construed so narrowly as to deprive a prisoner of a reasonable opportunity to protect themselves from forseeable harm and the forseeable harm we're talking about here that the risk that  solitary confinement will lead someone to hurt themselves that's not a predictable that's not those aren't rational acts that's not something where the the prisoner can say i'm ok for a month but on month two things are going to go bad for me i think in the amec it's brief and also in our brief we discuss the idea that that suicidal ideation ebbs and flows and that what is seems fine one day can be can be too much another day so i think to give effect to this court's take on imminence we have to understand this risk as imminent in order to give inmates like mr wallace in his position the opportunity to protect themselves and that's argument  simply by dint of solitary confinement he is a in imminent danger of serious physical injury from self harm argument or two is a narrower version of argument number one and this comes from there the court's recent sanders v melvin case and sanders the melvin said in effect that if you have prolonged stale solitary confinement serious mental illness and a history of committing self harm then you are  alleged that you are under imminent danger of serious physical harm and i think like mr sanders mr wallace has been in solitary confinement for a very long time mr sanders eight years mr  eleven both men have been designated as seriously mentally ill seriously mentally ill by the illinois department of corrections and both men have attempted to commit suicide while in solitary confinement i believe mr sanders all one active of self mutilation two suicide attempts mr wallace has attempted to kill himself five times and the records unclear about whether the first two were in solitary confinement or when he was outside in the world but we know that at least three of the attempts have been while while incarcerated in solitary confinement so i think if the court was so so inclined it could dispose of this case in a sentence and simply say vacated  sanders our third argument is that we don't need to get to whether mr wallace is under a imminent danger of serious physical harm because in fact he only has two strikes in the district court relied on for a strike an opinion in the west a for the sanders a case that mr wallace did not file a west for was a completed class action to which mr wallace was an absent member mr wallace filed the an affidavit and mentioned wanting a temporary restraining order about practices in the prison things that were unrelated to the class action the district court construed mr wallace's affidavit as a motion to intervene so construe that the district court under took the rule twenty four analysis said this is this doesn't fly this and he can't intervene ten years into the litigation after it's already gone to judgment and after denying the motion to intervene said i'm going to treat this like a strike because this is functionally equivalent and i think you know while i think there's some some logic there i think that you can't you can't turn textually the denial of a motion into the dismissal of an action and i think what district courts could do and that's circumstances if they want to prevent inmates from from and running around their strikes is to order the clerk to dock at the attempted intervention is a separate case and let it proceed from there they can grant the motion an intervention and then dismiss the the complainant interventionists frivolous malicious or for failure to state a claim i think there is there is a way to satisfy the concerns the district court had similar circumstances for example successive periods petitions we've made pretty clear the district judges have to do have to warn somebody that through some orthodox filing use likely to be construed to you wanted to be construed as your filing that they would count against you and you have an opportunity to withdraw and i think that we would love that in this case mr wallace didn't get that warning he made us not to figured it out is another question but i don't know if it totally true i think that's something you know we hope that the core members here were at a pre answer pre discovery record on all of this and i think we've done our best and yeah mckee have done their best to give you the information which makes us of you solitary confinement as something that would put in they are not under an imminent danger of serious physical