Straub

MEMORANDUM ***

Ursula Straub appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of her civil *311 rights action against various state and county officials (“Defendants”). When a district court dismisses an action without prejudice, the order is final and appeal-able. See Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court erred in dismissing Straub’s First Amendment claim. “Courts have recognized detainees’ and prisoners’ first amendment right to telephone access.” Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.1986); see Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir.1996). In Carlo v. City of Chino, we affirmed “the existence of a First Amendment right to telephone access subject to reasonable security limitations.” 105 F.3d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1997); see also Halvorsen v. Baird, 146 F.3d 680, 689 (9th Cir.1998).

Here, Straub’s allegations are sufficient to set forth a viable claim against Defendants for violating her First Amendment right…