T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OMARS HA R R I E F F GA Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A T T H E W C A T E , e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16144 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 1 3 1 4 - WHA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m A l s up, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an d L E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner O m arS harr i ef f G ayappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g th a t d e f e n d a n ts v io la te d G a y ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o te c tio n r ig h ts . W e h av e ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew d e n o v o th e d istrict co u rt’s 

# FI LED JU L 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16144 2 d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im , W ei lbu rg v. Sh a p i ro , 488 F . 3d 1202, 1205 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , a nd f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f ac o m p la in t w ith o u t le a v e to a m e n d , L o p ezv . Sm ith , 2 0 3 F .3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e v a c a te a n d r e m a n d . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d G a y ’ s or i gi na l c om pl a i ntw i thoutf i r s tpr ovi di ng hi m w i th not i c e of

the de f i c i e nc i e s a nd a n opportuni tyt o a m e nd w i th the be ne f i tof th a t n o tic e , a n d a ls o d id n o t a d d r e s s G a y ’s e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la im th a t h e is

“ s i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d” t o m e nt a l l yi l l pr i s one r s w ho ur i na t e ors oi l on the m s e l ve s a nd hi s c l a i m f

orf a i l ur e t o pr ot e c thi m f

r om hi s c e l l m a t e s . A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e the j ud gm entand rem and t o the di stri ctcourtw i th i nstruct i on s t o add re ss the equal p r o te c tio n a n d f

a ilu r e - to - p r o te c t c la im s a n d p r o v id e G a yw ith a n o p p o rtu n ityto f ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. See W ei lb u rg , 48 8 F . 3d at12 05 (“ D i sm i ss al of a p ro se c om pl a i ntw i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd i s pr ope ronl yi f i ti s abs ol ut e l yc l e a rtha tthe de f i c i e nc i e s of

the c om pl a i ntc oul d notbe c ur e d bya m e ndm e nt . ” ( c i t a t i on a nd in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ) ; Ferdi k v . B on ze let , 9 6 3 F .2 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 1 ( 9 th C i r . 1992) ( “ [ B ] e f

or e di s m i s s i ng apr o s e c om pl a i ntthe di s tr i c tc ourtm us tpr ovi de the l i t i gantw i th n ot i ce of the defi ci enci es i n h i s c om pl ai nti n o rdert o ensure that the l i t i gantuses the op po rtun i ty t o am end eff ec t i vel y. ”) .10- 16144 3 G a ys h a ll b e a rh is o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.