John L. Williams-El v. JAMES GREG COX, N.D.O.C. Director;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN L. WILLIAMS-EL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES GREG COX, N.D.O.C. Director; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15271
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00422-RCJ-WGC
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15271
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 of 2 --