Case Name: Dale G. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cal TERHUNE; Linda Melching; C. Hollis; George M. Galaza; Oscar Pena; T. Pruitt; P. McClure; L. Hense; R. Vella; John Marshall, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-21
Citations: 4 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 99-16069; D.C. No. CV-98-06052-CWW
Parties: Dale G. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cal TERHUNE; Linda Melching; C. Hollis; George M. Galaza; Oscar Pena; T. Pruitt; P. McClure; L. Hense; R. Vella; John Marshall, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 4
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
Dale G. WILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cal TERHUNE; Linda Melching; C. Hollis; George M. Galaza; Oscar Pena; T. Pruitt; P. McClure; L. Hense; R. Vella; John Marshall, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-16069.
D.C. No. CV-98-06052-CWW.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.
Decided Feb. 21, 2001.
Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dale G. Wills, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we vacate and remand.
The district court properly determined that Wills failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and in light of our three-judge decision in Lopez v. Smith, 160 F.3d 567, 571 (9th Cir.1998), withdrawn, 173 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. Apr.12, 1999). However, because of our subsequent decision in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-30 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), which holds that the PLRA does not over rule Ninth Circuit law requiring district courts to give a pro se prisoner an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, we vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of Lopez. See id.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
VACATED and REMANDED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.