Question not identified.

No question identified. : Case: 24-5790 Document: 11-1 Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 1 (1 of 4) No. 24-5790 FILED Jan 16, 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR HEncn Giteoin KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk RICKEY BENSON, v. ORDER J. FIELDS, Chief Jailer and/or subordinates; DEPUTY WRIGHT, ww wa ww SS SS Before: BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Rickey Benson, a pro se inmate formerly housed at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center and a frequent litigant, moves to proceed in forma pauperis in his appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant to the “three-strikes” provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Benson also moves for oral argument. In March 2024, Benson sued Chief Jailer Kirk Fields, unnamed “subordinates,” and Deputy Wright under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, on February 19, 2024, while he was housed at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center, “Field and/or subordinates” allowed Wright to come to his pod and “mak[e] threats to physically harm [him] the first chance he get[s] at the Shelby County Jail, and also gun [him] down on the streets when [he] get[s] released from the Shelby County Jail” due to two grievances he had filed. Benson asserted that this caused him “mental anguish and mental and emotional distress and pain and suffering by intimidation” and “plac[ed] him under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Benson moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Benson has more than three prior civil actions that were dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous and did not sufficiently allege that he was in imminent danger of Case: 24-5790 Document: 11-1 Filed: 01/16/2025 Page: 2 No, 24-5790 -2serious physical injury at the time he filed suit, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the district court denied Benson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court stated that it would reopen the case on a motion from Benson filed within 28 days and accompanied by payment of the filing fee. The court ordered that, if Benson failed to so move, the matter would be dismissed with prejudice. Benson did not move to reopen the case, and the district court entered an order and judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Benson now appeals that judgment. A prisoner who has previously had three or more actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, as malicious, or for failure to state a claim is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in the district court or on appeal “unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To satisfy the imminent-danger exception, a prisoner must allege “facts from which a court, informed by its judicial experience and common sense, could draw the reasonable inference that [he] was under an existing danger at the time he filed his complaint” or, on appeal to this court, at the time that he filed his appeal. Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Taylor v. First Med. Mgmt., 508 F. App’x 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2012)); see Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). Allegations of past danger, as well as wholly speculative or conclusory allegations of danger, are insufficient to satisfy the imminent-danger exception. Vandiver, 727 F.3d at 585. Benson is barred by the three-strikes provision from proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal. First, he has accrued at least three strikes. See, e.g., Benson v. Luttrell, No. 2:08-cv-02825 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 9, 2009); Benson v. Luttrell, No. 2:07-cv-02790 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 11, 2008); Benson y. Luttrell, No. 2:04-cv-02507 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2004). Second, Benson’s allegation of a verbal threat from Wright fails to show that he was in immediate danger of physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. See Rittner v. Kinder, 290 F. App’x 796, 798 (6th Cir. 2008); Shephard v. Marbley, 23 F. App’x 491, 492 (6th Cir. 2001). And there is no indication in the complaint that he was subjected