injuries because mr dacre had more than three prior federal lawsuits dismissed to proceed in forma operas it was required to allege that he was an imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the complaint although he did the district court dismissed that combines this court should reverse that dismissal because mr dacre properly alleged that he was an imminent danger of serious visible injury from being forcibly shaved from being shamed with unsanitary and broken clippers and from being exposed to feces and st i'd like to talk about the standard standard to show imminent danger does standard is essentially a pleading requirement that comes out of the prison litigation reform act and this court sr circuits emphasized that the imminent danger exception is a threshold thousand and three sent to fine tune what a serious serious enough to qualify for the exception would result in a complicated set of rules about what conditions are serious enough all for a simple statutory provision governing when a prisoner must pay the filing fee for his crime and the way the disk work resolves this question is by looking at the complaints taking the allegations as true complaints in a number of ways he alleged that guards at the georgia diagnostic prison forcibly shaved him in november two thousand and twelve december two thousand and twelve and november  to his back and then we also have what he alleged that they used chemicals on him to force to force him to comply and those chemicals burned his eyes in the room and this is the chemical spraying in the latest forcible shaving occurred in two thousand and seventeen roughly two weeks before he filed this complaint so so i would say the allegations are  prison officials are certainly allowed to use force to maintain order in a prison the problems here and to enforce the present rules reasonable prison rules certainly mr dacre is muslim and that's buzz to the faces in that one should say off on one time where now the inmates had been there and they didn't clean it up before miss a day forward been there and we've got another case already he alleged about but they're allowed to use force when they should have him and so i look to see if the force is excessive and he doesn't really alleged injury so i don't know how we circuit and the supreme court recently helped that there was no qualified immunity for keeping individuals in feces covered so and so i think a lot of these questions are the kinds of questions that should be litigated and it could very well end  the you know what we're looking for here is did he alleged any serious physical injury and imminent danger of that occurring again but what you've got here is whether we've got repetitive compl and your honor if i could if i could risk i know i'm out of time if i could take maybe a minute to respond to your lies the da other cases are they don't cover the same specific acts so they're not duplicated in that  way their own published of their non binding but i think the court's concern is that mr dacre could very well go on to lose that the force could have been authorized the the you know i'm not concerned about it all i'm concerned about that i point to that the pattern that occurred over the four years the fact that the last forcible shaving and chemicals occurred about two weeks before he filed this complaint a little bit under two weeks and the fact that it's the same defendants who are doing this to him over time and i think that this policy only shows only supports the that there is an imminent threat because you know assumingly that the prison will well i would argue that the claims are not to put it in and i would point to the chart on page thirty seven dollars of our brief that tracks the dates of the incidents complained about in the various lawsuits and so i would say that that at the very least the case before this court these incidents are separate and distinct dates and he's asking for both injunctive in monetary relief and so he's permitted to file multiple complain on based on actions occurring in different dates you know whether that's a good strategic choice or not i'm not sure but the law certainly allows him to do that and so what he complains about here is different from what he's complained about another case outset of his case rather than piecemeal over time that's what the appeal is about the court's precedents this court's precedents provide the law that is needed to address mr drift dacres contentions our position is there's no need to break new ground here but i would like to point the court to a case outside of the circuit lewis the sullivan it's a seven circuit case from two thousand and two to seventy nine dollars f there are five hundred and twenty six because lewis captures the why behind some of the points that we're talking about lewis explains that one thousand nine hundred and fifteen t imposes a real limitation on a prisoner's ability to bring claims in court but it is a statutory limitation and specifically it's a recognition by congress that there is no constitutional entitlement to a subsidy and the full import of this is understood when we see that in the statutes text there's no exception for important claims or substantial claims or even for claims that address the fundamental rights so i start with this because when you look at the factors in one thousand nine hundred and fifty factors you come back to those basic principles it's eight the court's precedents established that danger  can overcome his three strikes and proceed i f t only with plausible allegations that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury he doesn't have to prove that contention but he has to have plausible allegations showing that it is so and as this court has said in brown they can't be speculative or general allegations that that's that's not an all of what i'm saying i'm saying that he has provided fact information which shows that his allegation is speculative he says that unsanitized clippers are used but he doesn't plead either that he has been harmed by it or that this is a means by which disease is actually transferred in the prison he's speculating on that and that's different from other cases like the cases that the council cites from the th circuit that talk broken or unsanitized clippers can actually transfer disease in the way that mr baker alleges and he does not point to science in his complaint he doesn't need to but he also doesn't get to experience in his complaint that gives some plausibility to his allegation he doesn't say that there's ease for example has been shown to be rampant because of the use of unsanitized clippers and he doesn't shout and that he has been harmed in any way and again i think it's important that he allege regular basis but he fails to plead any facts to allow the court to reasonably infer that the use of that means to shape actually causes injury or causes a threat of injury to other inmates there's nothing for the court to draw upon to make that finding other than respectfully are speculation perhaps from the science that using a damaged clipper or a or a clipper of that kind that he describes will transfer to see if i could i'd like to say that there's a really this court has said and the decisions are consistent with those from other circuits that chop this case from the th circuit or the nd circuit excuse me and that sharp a cleaner case from the th circuit both say that conclusory allegations will not do so what is needed are specific allegations of a present imminent danger that may result in serious physical harm or another way that this court has phrased it brown in the two thousand and four cases specific allegations of ongoing serious injury or a pattern of prison missed conduct evidencing a likelihood of that kind of injury so there are twenty two points i'd like to make here that i think showed the deficiencies in the complaint on this present imminent danger point and i think the district court got both of them right the st is that the allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury are speculative and there conclusory and the nd is that the prison condition that is really being challenged here is one of but not always refused to comply with the t t c beard length restriction is choice to comply his choice to shave on occasion shows that he can avoid use force he also says that judy officers may ultimately but not as a st resort use force to get him to comply and i think it is telling to look at his allegations in this case that you support occurred only two months after data was apt to shave in that interim time period he was issue disciplinary record he was provided disciplinary hearing he was after that hearing found guilty and given sanctions one of the sanctions was to be moved to the tier two location and in all that time he was not forcibly shaped and stead after that officers returned to his cell and asked him a nd time and then again a rd time will you shave to comply with the policy and it was only after that that force was used to get him to comply and this gets to your question wilson and jeff fall in other words use of force is not in parent in the gini season foresman of it's beard length restrictions it only comes after there's an escalation of some sort and then we get to the use  speculative i would submit at best from dacres allegations that prison guards always use pepper spray when they force a prisoner to shave it is speculative to i would suggest to conclude that any time a prisoner is removed in voluntarily from his cell and handcuffed and then escorted to the barber shop to be shaved that he will be subjected to serious physical injury and on these points we can look to the complaint ongoing is the harm imminent and i think here we should we should look to the cases that mr baker and his counsel cites they cite to the jacoby case of this court from two thousand and twenty one and to smith clemens from two thousand and twelve look again at all the steps that mr dacre says occurred before force was used the guards asked he was issued a d or r he was given a hearing the guards asked again and only then was force used that kind of situation is categorically different from the smith b clemens where for some reason guards without reason and without notice use force or to it's a slate against prisoners there's no allegations that mr dacre is beaten simply because he does not judge sauls question or comment earlier is do you need to wait for a ruling in that smith case in order to sort out what this should go and so the answer i would i would give the court is no absolutely not and it's actually a very simple and clear answer given the precedents both this circuit's precedents and also all of the out of circuit precedents that are cited by mr baker's counsel indicate clearly that whether there is an imminent danger of serious physical injury is determined when the complaint was filed so the simple and short answer to this question is that when mr dacre filed this lawsuit in at the time that he filed this lawsuit the smith case was not out there was no and so whatever occurs either based on the district court ruling in smith or this court's ruling ultimate ruling and smet cannot change the fact that so many want to thank you cannot change the fact that he was not an imminent danger at the time of suits filed there's another component to that timing question which i think is important is that and it goes to whether there was some sort of bridge to it just violence being inflicted on mr baker at the time that he says force was used there was separate legal issues so i'm not prepared to argue and i would not argue that those are separate grounds for dismissal what i would say is that we believe the one thousand nine hundred and fifteen j ground is significant and submission in itself and that mr baker if he wants to proceed with this constitutional challenge must do so after paying the full filing fee and if this this mess all along and one thousand nine hundred and fifteen he has without prejudice that's correct but correct your honor and i think it gets back to the lewis case that i that i cited earlier i'm sorry to that but if it does matter and this goes to the nd piece present the present condition being challenged is one of mr dakers making because he has refused instructions to shades and it doesn't matter that force was not like that or two it's a sports used in the jacoby on the smith case the point is that force wanted prisoners to be able to challenge unconstitutional policies particularly when there is an imminent threat of violence against the prisoner and this is the mechanism by which they do it so i don't think if this court affirms that dismiss i don't think that mr dacre could just turn around and pay the filing fee i think that he would suffer consequences because some of these have i think my opposing counsel talking about that each i v if the prison had a russian roulette policy where they were just engaging russian roulette to shave opposing counsel would argue that because you don't know one's been shot that that's not alleging imminent oculus and that's just not the case here mr dakers alleged several leads that he's been harmed and because it's a ongoing pattern with the same defendants he's alleged that he's at threat of imminent harm and simply because he's not contract hiv over the years that they have caught him with unsanitary clippers does not look to what those regulations require and find that the allegation is that the prison does not does not do what's necessary under the if the borrower want to go