Did the Ninth Circuit impermissibly revoke Appellant's In Forma Pauperis (IFP) status under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) where a 'high risk' prisoner clearly made allegations of ongoing pattern of conduct with supporting evidence demonstrating significant and imminent danger of serious physical injury?

No question identified. : ‘ Did the. Ninth Circuit .impermissibly revoke -Appellant's.In Forma Pauperis .CIFP) Status under..28 U.S.C. 1915(g)... where . Heat Risk. prisoner. .@learly. made allegations of. ongoing pattern of conduct with...supporting. evidence -conduct . demonstrated: significant. and..“imminent .danger of serious physical. injury?" . . _ -, Was. the. Nipth. Circuit > decision: to. -IFP Status . who . . alleged. ongoing threat .of imminent. danger: of .serious physical injury “a clear. ' departure from the--accepted -an@..ugual’ course of..judicial .proceedings and Ninth Circuit's own binding: precedents"? If 80,0 0 we Oo ee oe, _. By .Revoking “TEP Status did the Ninth Circuit improperly "immunize" the » district. court's alleged “clearly erroneous". decision by. denying. review on appeal.and refused to entertain any further motion(s)? . . . If the Appellees raise issue of.Appellant's “"Vexatious Litigant" history under’ 28 U.S.C. -§:1915(g), .is Appellant. [Petitioner] entitled to assert. "New. . Argument" in defense showing. State Governmental actor's. Perpetual pattern. of. "Direct Obstruction and. Interference" with.Prisoner's Access to.-the.Courts. and . legal. mail ‘tampering, had _motive. to. intentionally cause.legal injury. resulting in "STRIKES" against..Prisoner?” .If.so, . Does. that’ “same pattern... ofs..conduct resulted in strike dismissals substantiate "Vexatious Litigant" Branding?; and , Does it immunized the judgments entered against the. victim of "State Governmental Official's impermissible conduct causing those injuries?" ‘ , “NOTE: “This court has held that the constitution requires the waiver of filing ~ ster) i feesdimcriminal: eaedas Mayer ; "9228300. 2410; Griffin ve ee on, ‘Ihlinois, 351 U.S “2277-76; Si0t«"585s: In-the civil context; “ however,:the Constis=s) 6 3 ~4 ; tution only requirés:waiver of .£fling: fees: for indigent “persons: whoare: challen=<. 2: | ging termination of -their-parental rights,_id.y -or seeking: a «.. 5 v. Connecticut, 401:'U.S. 371 however, this petitioner is currently denied filing ==... in both state and federal courts with no other means to acquire redress. : f Lr