Does a non-prisoner, indigent, pro se litigant to a Section 1983 claim who initially proceeds In Forma Pauperis but later pays for his appeal, lose the same right of access to court procedures, the same rights as represented parties, the right to be heard on appeal by submission of brief, merely because dismissal by the district court was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b), which negates the adversarial process, allows the court to act as an advocate for absent defendants, leaving only one party to a case and appeal — equate to a lack of Due Process, Equal Protection and chilling of Free Speech?

Does a non-prisoner, indigent, pro se litigant to a Section 1983 claim who initially proceeds In Forma Pauperis but later pays for his appeal, lose the same right of access to court procedures, the same rights as represented parties, the right to be heard on appeal by submission of brief, merely because dismissal by the district court was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b), which negates the adversarial process, allows the court to act as an advocate for absent defendants, leaving only one party to a case and appeal?