22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T50a,MEMORANDUM 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 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T53c,

MEMORANDUM

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 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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.