NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN L. WILLIAMS-EL, No. 16-15271
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00422-RCJ-WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES GREG COX, N.D.O.C. Director; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 16-15271