Eddie Lopez v. Dept. Of Health Services
Opinion
Opinion
Eddie Lopez appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In his complaint, Lopez alleged that he was denied medical services because of his indigency. We review de novo, Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1989), and vacate and remand.
The district court’s sua sponte dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process upon the defendants is construed as a dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). Id. A frivolous claim is one which lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 , 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 , 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). An indigent plaintiff with an arguable claim is entitled to issuance and service of process. Jackson, 885 F.2d at 640 . “In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and must afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 , 623 (9th Cir.1988).
To state a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts which show a deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law by a person acting under…