Œ We granted the appellees’ motion for non-involvement due to

lack of service in the district court. Accordingly, this appeal has

been submitted without the filing of a brief by the appellees. After

examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we conclude that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on

the appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 02-3667

SCOTT A. HEIMERMANN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JON E. LITSCHER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 02-C-411-C—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

____________

SUBMITTED JUNE 25, 2003Œ—DECIDED JULY 18, 2003

____________

Before BAUER, COFFEY, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Wisconsin inmate Scott Heimermann has

filed numerous frivolous lawsuits in the federal courts,

earning himself three “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

He is thus prohibited from bringing a civil action in forma

pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of serious
2 No. 02-3667

1 He has also been subjected to a series of fines and filing restrictions. See, e.g., Heimermann v. McCaughtry, No. 02-4033 (7th

Cir. Feb. 4, 2003) (order imposing $5,000 sanction for repeated

frivolous filings).

physical injury.”1

In July 2002 Heimermann filed another proposed complaint, requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

He devoted the 64-page complaint primarily to contesting

his murder conviction, alleging that he was framed by

unspecified officials at the Milwaukee County District

Attorney’s office and the City of Milwaukee Police Department, who then conspired with officials at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to prevent him from

clearing his name. His narrative also told how in 1998

prison officials recruited him to assist with a “sting”

operation against a prison guard, but afterwards kept

him in the general prison population, leaving him open to

reprisal as a “snitch” and thus in imminent danger of

serious physical injury. He asked the district court to

order him transferred to a minimum-security facility or

released from prison outright. The district court concluded

that it could not reasonably infer imminent danger

of serious physical injury from the facts alleged: the

sting operation had happened four years earlier, and

Heimermann did not even allege that the target of

that investigation still worked at the prison. The court

therefore denied Heimermann’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Heimermann requested reconsideration. In his motion,

he argued that his complaint sufficiently alleged that

he was in imminent danger of reprisal from guards and

fellow inmates during the period of the investigation, from

June 1998 through June 2000. He then argued that “the

proper focus when examining an inmate’s complaint filed
No. 02-3667 3

2 Ironically, Heimermann has paid the full $105 appellate filing

fee.

USCA-02-C-0072—7-18-03

pursuant to § 1915(g) must be the imminent danger faced

by the inmate at the time of the alleged incident . . . and not

at the time his complaint was filed” (emphasis added). The

district court disagreed, concluding that allegations of

past imminent danger do not satisfy the requirement of

§ 1915(g), and denied Heimermann’s motion to reconsider. Heimermann appealed.2

We agree with the district court. The “imminent danger”

exception to § 1915(g)’s “three strikes” rule is available “for

genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a

threat . . . is real and proximate. ” Lewis v. Sullivan, 279

F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). Any danger Heimermann

might have experienced between 1998 and 2000 does not

supply a basis for an exception in July 2002. And although

Heimermann, apparently understanding this, now argues

that he did experience imminent danger at the time his

complaint was filed, his change of course at this stage of

the proceedings is unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit