Danny Goodroad appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2671 (Federal Tort Claims Act) suit after the court dismissed it for failure to pay the filing fee. Although Mr. Goodroad is subject to the three-strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), see In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529 (8th Cir.1997), we find his allegations that he continues to be housed with known enemies despite being wheelchair-bound, that he has been labeled an informant and assaulted three times in the past three years, and that he is not receiving adequate nutrition and is being denied sufficient pain medication which may compromise his ability to receive treatment for his multiple sclerosis, are sufficient to invoke the imminent-danger exception, see Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Accordingly, we grant Mr. Goodroad in forma pauperis status on appeal, leaving to the district court the details of calculating the initial partial appellate filing fee and the collection of the balance. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
As to the merits, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Goodroad’s motion as he is attempting to revive an action dismissed more than two years ago, and has not shown the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant him the relief he seeks. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975, 122 S.Ct. 400, 151 L.Ed.2d 304 (2001). We further find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Goodroad’s request for recusal. See Pope v. Fed. Express Corp., 974 F.2d 982, 985 (8th Cir.1992).
Accordingly we affirm, and we deny Mr. Goodroad’s renewed request for recusal of Judge Jones and his request for appointment of counsel.