Did the Ninth Circuit impermissibly revoke Appellant's In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Status under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) where Heat Risk prisoner clearly made allegations of ongoing pattern of conduct with supporting evidence conduct demonstrated significant, and "imminent danger of serious physical injury?"

Has the Ninth Circuit decision to revoke Appellant's IFP Status who alleged ongoing threat of imminent danger of serious physical injury "a clear departure from the accepted and usual" course of judicial proceedings and Ninth Circuit's own binding precedents"? If so,

By Revoking IFP 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 of 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?"

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?