Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Leandrew Grayson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Grayson apparently contends that he was denied adequate medical treatment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

We affirm.

This court must give liberal construction to pro se pleadings, particularly when they involve civil rights claims. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Vague and conclusory allegations, however, are insufficient to support an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) when the claims have no arguable basis in law and fact. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).

To state a claim under section 1983 based on a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical treatment, Grayson "must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful" to show that the prison staff acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); see also Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 2462 (1987). Grayson's complaint, however, is based entirely on vague, ambiguous and conclusory allegations that he has not received medical treatment for unspecified medical needs. He has failed to allege any specific acts or omissions which might show that he was deliberately denied adequate medical treatment. Since Grayson's action has no arguable basis in law or fact, the district court properly dismissed it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) as frivolous. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28.¹ 

AFFIRMED.