Whether a prior dismissal is a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED THAT THIS ACTION SHOULDN’f HAD BEEN DISMISS BECAUSE APPELLANT HAS THREE STRIKES AND IF SO, WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO IN-VOKE THE IMMINENT DANGER EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE. 28 U.S.C.& 1915(G). APPELLANT IS RESPECTFULLY ASKING THIS HIGH COURT TO ASSIGN THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO ASSIST HIM IN THIS APPEAL. DUE TO APPELLANT NOT NOWING THE RULES THE FED.R.APP. P. AND HAS NO TYPE OF(EXPERIENCE) IN EITHER FEBERAL LAW/OR CIVIL LAW. APPELLANT CAN ONLY ASSERT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PRIOR DISMISSAL IS A STRIKE IS A MATTER OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND, AS SUCH, IS AS 7 QUESTION FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE AS A MATTER OF LAW. APPELLANT HAS, OR IS ATTEMPTING TO DEMONSTRATED ECONOMIC NEED AND HAS THE FILED THE PRISONER AUTHORIZATION FORM REQUIRED? IN THE SOUTHERN : DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. THUS, THE COURT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS THREE STRIKES AND IF SO, WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO IN-VOKE THE IMMINENT DANGER EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE. 28U.S.C.°& 1915(G). HERE, APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE DEFENDANTS POINTED HIS GUN IN PLAINTIFFS FACE AF POINTBLANK RAGE, ON 12/15/2020. WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRISONER HAS QUALIFIED FOR THE IMMINENT DANGER EXCEPTION, COURTS LOOK AT THE NON-CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION= j IN THE APPELLANTS COMPLAINT. (ALL CIRCUITS MAINTAIN A SINGULAR . FOCUS ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT IN DECIDING WHETHER A PRISONER FACED THE REQUISITE HARM). APPELLANT CAN ONLY REQUESTS THAT THIS HIGH COURT APPOINT COUNSEL TO ASSIST HIM IN THIS APPEAL. THUS, UNLESS IT APPEARE THAT THE IMMINENT DANGER EXCEPTION TO THE THREE-STRIKES RULE IS APPLICABLE TO THIS ACTION. IN THIS ACTION, APPELLANT BELIVES THAT HE MIGHT HAVE STANDING TO THIS APPEAL. , (8)