they roled that the three strickes proursion under 28 U.S.C.S Pauperis regardin Petitoners civil rights complaint alleging he was blatantly deried the senice of process of summans sor Deferdants. oF upon Deterdants, did the u.8. Dist.Court, and U.S. Court OF Appeals in barring the in Torma Pauperis under summons correctly apply the three strikes provi28 U.S.C-31915(9 on's "breathing space" principle.

Reqarding alleced in the civil complaint whats prmarily the pawers used to bar service of procese upon, Deterdants, qovernmeital the in Tormar Pauperis under 28 U.3.C.319157 9).

Is the civil complaint Filed by the Petitionet alleing that he has beer deried service of process of summons in an attempt to by the Resp t sateci Peti satistactory to the iminent danger of serio physical har stadard.

as the Pettioners Fi Amerdment gh o a he court a b For tho Ninth Circoit's decision(s).

Did the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in barring the grant of in forma pauperis status regarding petitioner's civil rights complaint alleging denial of service of process?