liberally, particularly in the context of dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B), but are given broad discretion in determining when such complaints are frivolous. Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown) Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1994). A complaint may not be dismissed under § 1915(d)(2)(B) “simply because the court finds the plaintiffs allegations unlikely.” Jolly v. Klein, 923 F.Supp. 931, 942-43 (S.D.Tex.1996). A civil rights plaintiff must support his claim(s) with specific facts demonstrating a constitutional deprivation and may not simply rely on conclusory allegations. Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433 (5th Cir.1995). Nevertheless, a district court is bound by the allegations in a plaintiffs complaint and is “not free to speculate that the plaintiff ‘might’ be able to state a c (<HOLDING>). In his original complaint, Plaintiff stated
holding that an evidentiary hearing may be used to develop the factual basis of a prisoner complaint holding federal evidentiary hearing not statutorily barred when petitioner had sought to develop factual basis for claim in state court holding that when a petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim but the state court denies such a hearing entitlement to a federal court hearing is analyzed pursuant to preaedpa law rather than the standards set out in  2254e2 holding that contested factual issues in  2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute