Chapman v. State of Texas

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10625
Summary Calendar
SONYA L. CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-1997
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sonya L. Chapman is appealing the district court’s dismissal
of her pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
(2)(B)(i), (ii). Chapman argues that the district court abused
its discretion in dismissing her complaint without allowing her
to amend to add defendants and to make a more definite statement
of her claims.
The court reviews a determination that a complaint is
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-10625
-2-
Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). A
dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted is reviewed under the same de
novo standard as a dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Chapman was entitled to file one amendment to her complaint
before a responsive pleading was served. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).
The district court abused its discretion in dismissing the
complaint without allowing the amendment to be filed and
considering its validity. See Bass v. Parkwood Hospital, 180
F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1999); Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal
Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1053 (5th Cir. 1998).
The dismissal of the complaint against the State of Texas
based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is affirmed. The judgment
of the district court is vacated insofar as the district court
denied Chapman the opportunity to amend her complaint, and the
case is remanded to the district court for further consideration.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --