Michael Gresham v. Terry Meden, 938 F.3d 847

Plaintiff Michael Gresham, a Michigan state prisoner serving a 75-year sentence, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging prison staff forced him to take antipsychotic medication.
Gresham sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status to avoid the federal filing fee; the district court denied IFP and dismissed the case without prejudice when he failed to pay.
Gresham conceded he has at least three prior lawsuits dismissed as frivolous (the § 1915(g) "three-strikes" rule).
He alleged medication side effects including chest pains, akathisia (restlessness), seizures, vomiting, stomach cramps, and dizziness, and invoked the § 1915(g) imminent-danger exception.
The district court accepted the allegations as true but held the claimed symptoms did not amount to an imminent "serious physical injury" under § 1915(g); the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The Sixth Circuit interpreted "serious physical injury" to require potentially dangerous consequences (e.g., death, severe bodily harm), and concluded Gresham’s alleged symptoms—especially under medical supervision—did not satisfy that standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gresham is barred from IFP by the § 1915(g) three-strikes rule	Gresham conceded he has three prior dismissals but proceeded to seek IFP under the imminent-danger exception	Defendants maintained Gresham has three strikes and cannot proceed IFP absent a valid imminent-danger claim	Court: Gresham has three strikes; pauper status lost; he must pay the filing fee
Whether Gresham plausibly alleged he was "under imminent danger of serious physical injury" so as to trigger § 1915(g) exception	Gresham: antipsychotic side effects (chest pains, akathisia, seizures, vomiting, cramps, dizziness) create imminent serious physical injury	Defendants: symptoms are typically temporary, not life-threatening, and occur under medical supervision, so they do not present imminent serious injury	Court: Denied the exception — "serious" requires potentially dangerous consequences (death, severe bodily harm); Gresham’s allegations do not plausibly show such risk

Vandiver v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 727 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013) (prisoner met imminent-danger exception where risks included amputations, coma, or death)
Sanders v. Melvin, 873 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing between risks that satisfy imminent-danger and transient/lesser harms)
Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (organ damage, organ failure, and death risks satisfied imminent-danger exception)
Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962 (3d Cir. 1998) (risk of life-threatening disease satisfied imminent-danger exception)
Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (risk of illnesses that would hasten death satisfied imminent-danger exception)