Wills v. Terhune

4 F. App'x 451
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2001
DocketNo. 99-16069; D.C. No. CV-98-06052-CWW
StatusPublished

This text of 4 F. App'x 451 (Wills v. Terhune) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wills v. Terhune, 4 F. App'x 451 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Dale G. Wills, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we vacate and remand.

The district court properly determined that Wills failed to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and in light of our three-judge decision in Lopez v. Smith, 160 F.3d 567, 571 (9th Cir.1998), withdrawn, 173 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. Apr.12, 1999). However, because of our subsequent decision in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-30 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), which holds that the PLRA does not over[452]*452rule Ninth Circuit law requiring district courts to give a pro se prisoner an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, we vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of Lopez. See id.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lopez v. Smith
173 F.3d 749 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 F. App'x 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wills-v-terhune-ca9-2001.