Case Name: John L. WILLIAMS-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Greg COX, N.D.O.C. Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-23
Citations: 678 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 16-15271
Parties: John L. WILLIAMS-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Greg COX, N.D.O.C. Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
John L. WILLIAMS-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Greg COX, N.D.O.C. Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15271
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 23, 2017
John L. Williams-El, Pro Se
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John L. Williams-El, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his validation as a gang member. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We vacate and remand.
Dismissal without leave to amend was premature because it is not "absolutely clear" that the deficiencies in Williams-El's complaint could not be cured by amendment. Weilburg, 488 F.3d at 1205; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (standard of review); see also Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003) (relevant question for gang validation due process claim is "whether there was 'some evidence' to support [the prisoner's] validation").
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for the district to give Williams-El an opportunity to amend his complaint.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.