Arthur Wheeler v. Terrible Herbst Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Arthur J. Wheeler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Title VII action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Ci.2005). We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order or a local rule. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We reverse and remand.
To the extent that the district court dismissed Wheeler’s action for failure to state a claim, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Wheeler’s action with prejudice and without an opportunity to amend because Wheeler was proceeding pro se, he indicated that he had recently obtained counsel, and it is not clear that his complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir.2002) (noting standard of review and that this court is “very cautious in approving a district court’s decision to deny pro se litigants leave to amend”).