
    Sonya L. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-10625
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2007.
    
      Sonya Lashawn Chapman, Dallas, TX, pro se.
    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. 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.CivP. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     