address the issue that the supreme court left open when it decided coleman versus tollefson maybe whether section one hundred fifteen g b the three strikes statute for the prisoner in front of popular status with respect to an appeal from that third strike a third strike because the coleman case the three strikes had all been acquired prior to him commencing the action that was issued an appeal the supreme court said we'll leave that for another day well at the risk of plain language of the text is to try and calm and then went on to use that language and if i eat i think i understand it's reasoning and i'm this is where i'm trying to simplify a little bit coleman court did and i will also underscore the fact that you never miss lee was to characterize essentially litigation as either action and it appeal from that actions disposition would you agree with that i think that's where you are yes it used that reasoning to reach the result it reached equal d eight logically very very difficult car trying to say that that what it should not be equally applicable to this matter i think your hon think the key point in the statute and the ninth circuit in which he versus dame addressed this specific issue post coleman and they talked about how the rationale coleman actually applies to compel the occasion it's not a prior occasion for purposes of triggering opinions are treated they have precluded effect for subsequently filed actions but they have no bearing on the patio who's going to review this on appeal and generally speaking a little game has a right to appeal of an adverse g prior means subsequent to the action that's happening here subsequent to the case that bar so the third strike triggers nineteen fifteen g what the effect of nine hundred fifteen g is it's a prophylactic prohibition on be able to file you actions were being able to file appeals and other actions that are not the one that are currently before the court the supreme court said cold occasions doesn't that put the way to how we should push this case no i don't think it is or i think again i think it misses the point that the word prior is in the statute if this statute was being interpreted the way montgomery county exhibit puts forth in the way your honour's are asking the question is if you remove the word prior the statute still means exactly the same thing because then you're not sure if i think this question but you know if there's any legislative history that can help us understand what legislature meant by who were prior i'd not i'm not aware of any i know i don't know so so we're going to be determining what the term prior he means in this case  are i believe that's correct just like the nice circuit in the ten circuit did and they understood the common that meeting of the word prior to refer to lawsuits that were commenced prior to the action that was under appeal there's another provision of nine hundred fifteen that requires th honor but the idea is that straight to town at the time the f b i application is filed and that's what the supreme court said in coleman and there's other cases i believe my points in a private that make that point so what happens afterwards leaves open the possibility that perhaps mr parker could have given leave to appeal point to it in action if you chose to do so where he did lose a little getting opportunity it was not permitted to otherwise move forward  it was really a sea change in how one reads one thousand fifteen g and it changed it should change that rule for the third circuit as it should for the night start in the solar case which held the same thing as ball and there are several other circuits decision that functional equivalent argument was made there and ultimately found to prove too much and the up to a lot clark decision says that merely requiring a prisoner to pay a filing fee in a civil case does not standing i was found by congress basically to outweigh concerns that the third strike may have been entered in the air and should be applied and so when you don't appeal there will be to some extent you know a freezing of an iranian decision even under current itself putting the whole position on what the word prior is doing in the statute can you give us an example of where prior is doing work that is an example of something that would be an occasion and therefore tell it as a strike that is not in the district court with the dismissal of the action he filed an appeal he seeks some form of proper status this isn't twenty fifteen here we are today in twenty seventeen arguing about whether he should be granted i so it would be an occasion but not a prior occasion the work prior to doing the work there of the taking that one of you fred at least on the other side says it's the filing of the notice of appeal that freezes in time what counts as a why the language of the statute as well as coleman says that the time for content of strikes is when the complaint is filed when the action of brought to other points where mr newcomer mentioned abu akbar case and i just like to g obviously means a prisoner may not file a new civil complaint so i think that again talks about from the effect of nine hundred fifteen g has both active effect but the actual application or the actual case at