Steven Charles Brigida, Aka: Steven C. Brigida, Petitioner-appellant, v. Otis Thurman, Warden, California State Department Ofcorrections; D.b. Anderson; Tagnipez; Selle,respondents-appellees, 89 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

California state prisoner Steven Charles Brigida appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to obey court orders requiring him to file an amended complaint. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed Brigida's First Amended complaint with leave to amend because it determined that Brigida: (1) sought damages against California employees acting in their official capacity, and (2) used fictitious "doe" defendants in his complaint. Appellant failed to file an amended complaint and the district court dismissed the action without prejudice.

Brigida submitted two documents entitled "First Amended Complaint." The first document is a standard form complaint. The second document, which Brigida appears to have attached as an addendum to question 3, contains a caption which unambiguously states that Brigida is seeking damages against the named defendants in their individual capacity. Because a pro se complaint should be liberally construed, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing appellant's complaint. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing appellant's complaint for the use of "doe" defendants. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642-43 (9th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, we vacate and remand this matter for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED.