Alice Quinonez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

MEMORANDUM

Aice Quinonez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims relating to her mortgage and the foreclosure of her property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.G. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Athough the district court properly dismissed Quinonez’s complaint because Qui-nonez’s claims were time barred or failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, the district court abused its discretion by providing “no explanation for dismissing with prejudice, despite the fact that the operative complaint was the first and only complaint filed by [Quinonez], who was proceeding pro se.” Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2015). Moreover, it is not absolutely clear that the timeliness deficiencies in Quinonez’s claims could not be cured by amendment. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect ..., a pro se litigant is…