IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30321
Summary Calendar
CHARLES EDWARD BOYD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(00-CV-367)
August 29, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Boyd, a prisoner, alleges that he was subjected to racially-
motivated verbal abuse and intimidation throughout an eighteen-
month period. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he appeals
the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We vacate and remand.
In dismissing Appellant’s equal protection claim, a federal
magistrate judge concluded that Appellant failed to demonstrate
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not
establish that he was deprived of an established right or that he
was purposefully discriminated against. Appellant filed written
objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The
district court overruled his objections, and adopted the magistrate
judge's findings.
An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous
if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.1 We review the
dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint for abuse of
discretion.2 If insufficient factual allegations might be remedied
by more specific pleading, we must consider whether the district
court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.3
The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, adopted by
the district court without comment, relied upon our opinion in Sir
William v. Bramer4 for the proposition that “a racial epithet,
without harassment or some other conduct that deprives the victim
of established rights, does not amount to an equal protection
violation.”5 In that case, we found that the “one, isolated
1
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
2
Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999).
3
Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).
4
180 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1999).
5
Id. at 706.
comment” alleged did not rise to the level of harassment.6
The conduct alleged by Appellant is not an isolated comment,
however. Appellant claims that over an eighteen-month period he was
continually subjected to harassment, racial epithets, and threats
from a group of white officers. In his report and recommendation,
the magistrate judge described the alleged activities as
“harassment,” “verbal abuse,” and “threats.” These allegations
constitute an arguable equal protection claim, and should not have
been dismissed as frivolous. Appellant’s claims are not “pure
fantasy or based upon a legally inarguable proposition.”7
The district court abused its discretion by dismissing
Appellant’s equal protection claim without providing him an
opportunity to offer more detailed factual claims. Faced with
pleadings that it found inadequate, the district court did not
conduct a Spears8 hearing or require Appellant to fill out a
questionnaire. With further factual development, Appellant’s
allegations may constitute a colorable equal protection claim. His
claim should not be dismissed as frivolous until Appellant has the
opportunity to further develop his allegations.
Appellant also raises a number of other claims, and argues
that the district court’s denial of injunctive relief was an abuse
of its discretion. We find that the district court did not abuse
6
Id.
7
Eason, 14 F.3d at 10.
8
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.3d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985).
its discretion with regard to Appellant’s other claims.
Accordingly, we VACATE the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff’s equal protection claim, AFFIRM its dismissal of
Appellant’s other claims, and REMAND for further proceedings.