and turn to an excuse which is jackson versus mark prisoner's plausible allegations that he was denied adequate religious meals are sufficient to satisfy the imminent danger exception to the three strikes provision of the p l r a the answer to that threshold procedural question i simple yes the district court should have waived mr jackson's filing fee that is because where a prisoner plausibly alleges that he's suffering the symptoms of monk tradition because of the deprivation of food that suffices to show imminent danger and in this case mr jackson alleged just as much he claimed that for over one year one incarcerated in a new york state prison he was deprived of almost half of his weekly meals because of that the prisons inability to comply with is to adequately addresses sincerely held religious beliefs even reached the  look at nine hundred fifteen the imminent danger issue in four sentences and it didn't discuss the allegations that mr jackson made and his complaint to any detail the only thing the district court said is that there were no facts that allege imminent danger because the only allegation was a first amendment violation and so to that extent we think that that holding is mistaken but this court on appeal can address those issues under the court's precedent and chavis for example where in a similar response fact pattern the district court had denied i if he had said that the allegations were insufficient it looked at the allegation question it seems to me that not only t requesting here take it your argument is that you would just about to say that the threshold here is very low for finding him in an injury and that we should therefore conclude that the district erred in applying the three strikes rule yes and then we should and the relief that this court should grant is to vacate and remand to the district court yes this end at that point and you know i  think this may have been judge question the district where not to say you should grant he because maybe the complaint is frivolous for some other reason or whatever that w should be saying is that the district court cannot deny because of the three strikes is that the is that the holding that you are asking us to make if i may go to the first part of your question of question because the complaint might be frivolous those are two different tools that congress gave to district court yeah i understand that that's what i'm saying in other words it's not the only thing that is before us because the only ruling that the district court made is that mr jackson can't get the because of the three strikes rule and so what you're asking us to do i take it is to say that is incorrect because he qualifies under the imminent danger to health exception to the three strikes law so he is not out because of the three strikes he may still ground out on the next pitch yes so we don't we don't have that issue before assume that mr jackson is in fact indigent but we can't make that finding are we supposed to make that five and that didn't that hasn't come up yet no your honor the did file a knife the motion below and this court being granted i he status while he was in cars we did for here yes but all i'm saying is are you saying we're supposed to assess all the factors that go into whether i have peter should be granted and direct the district or only to say the reason that you denied he is incorrect and if that's the only reason that he gets life even if there are other reasons there are other reasons and that's not before us yes your honor but to address what was  we would be happy with both but i think the former is our preferred outcome i understand would be your preferred outcome why would that be the correct did the district court actually address every other possible factor address possible for volatile address whether he actually made a showing of indigency and say gee he's got all that but he loses because of the three strikes rule where did the district reach those other issues so to go back to the idea different what is being considered under nine hundred fifteen g that is a separate question exactly my point it's a separate question and therefore is it still a question that is open to the district court to consider or is it a question that you think for some reason we should decide on our own no this that that question is still open for the district court but that is not the reason to deny i if the status is granted under nine this right so that would be another thing that the district court should look at if we agree with you on lifting the three strikes bar on the basis of imminent danger so we can't really grant i have peace status in the district court we can just say the reason you didn't give it previously is incorrect but that's without prejudice from us for your analyzing the other factors that go into i have to be determination so yes there is honor but that the other factors as i was pointing out do not deal with the merits of the case discarding chavis is made clear that nine hundred fifteen g shouldn't be turned into a tool to address what is a proper grounds for dismissal under nine hundred fifteen e that is a separate question that is subse court into the question whether he is really under the risk of serious physical injury so obviously a conclusory allegation of imminent danger without any other factual allegations would not be sufficient and we think that that is clearly not what was happening in this case if the district court felt that i hearing word that a show a request for a showing of cars is necessary that would certainly be something in this record can do but in this particular case we think that the allegations that are shown at page eight twenty two that point i take it your argument is the district court should since those are specific factual allegations not conclusory allegations of danger the district court should take that as true and the district court and we should then assess those allegations and decide if those things are true then that's good enough to get you past this yes you're on and that's that's what you're asking us to rule yes and that is what this court as done in its line of precedent one hundred fift that would then have a hearing and bring in mr jackson and have him be cross examined by somebody there's nobody to cross examine him because there's no adversary yet to or somehow subpoena people from the prison to say no