JOHN WILLIAMS-EL V. JAMES COX, No. 16-15271 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN L. WILLIAMS-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15271 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.