free access to federal courts than it is to provide unlimited access to them.’ ” 144 F.3d at 724 (quoting Roller, 107 F.3d at 231). Because § 1915(g) does not infringe upon prisoners’ fundamental rights and indigent prisoners are not a suspect class, the three-strike rule need only satisfy a rational basis test. Harris, 448 U.S. at 322, 100 S.Ct. 2671. Rodriguez argues that § 1915(g) fails to satisfy a rational basis test. We disagree. Un der the rational basis test, § 1915(g) is presumed to be valid and we will uphold § 1915(g) if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). We have previously held that the PLRA satisfied rational basis scrutiny. Madrid, 150 F.3d at 1041 (<HOLDING>). We now hold that the PLRA’s three-strike rule
holding that fees may be awarded for litigating amount of fees only where language of statute supports such conclusion holding that attorneys fees can be awarded only from time duty to defend arose holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction holding that the plras limit on the amount of attorneys fees that can be awarded to inmates counsel satisfied the rational basis test holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law