
    Ronald D. DIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16792.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 22, 2013.
    Ronald D. Diggs, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald D. Diggs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider its order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to notify the district court of his change of address. We review for an abuse of discretion, Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 380 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we reverse and remand.

Denial of Diggs’s motion for reconsideration on the basis of excusable neglect was an abuse of discretion where the district court failed to identify and analyze the motion under the standard set out in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) and in Briones. See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.2009) (district court abuses its discretion where it fails to identify or apply Pioneer-Briones standard properly). A proper application of the Pioneer-Briones standard demonstrates “excusable neglect” because Diggs’s failure to file written notification of his change of address immediately upon release from custody showed no danger of prejudice to the defendants, a minimal delay in the proceedings and impact on the district court’s docket, good faith on the part of Diggs, and an excusable reason for the delay. Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir.2000) (applying Pioneer-Briones standard). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     