
    Teresa ROY, aka Teresa Renee Roy Ford-Roy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of CALIFORNIA, as an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56113
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 24, 2017
    Teresa Roy, Pro Se
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Teresa Roy, a.k.a. Teresa Renee Roy Ford-Roy, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims against the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, and the U.S. Social Security Administration, among other defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We vacate and remand.

Although the district court properly dismissed Roy’s complaint because it failed to state a claim for relief, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because it is not clear that amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review); Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect ... a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). For example, although Roy failed to allege facts sufficient to state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and wrongful conviction, Roy may be able to state one or more of those claims by alleging that her criminal conviction was dismissed and expunged.

On remand, the district court shall permit Roy to include in her amended complaint allegations and supporting documents pertaining to the alleged dismissal and expungement of her criminal conviction.

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