
    David Roy STILWELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-15603.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2013.
    Filed Nov. 27, 2013.
    Travis Norman Barrick, Gallian, Welker & Beckstrom, LC, Las Vegas, NV, Gary William Gorski, Law Offices of Gary W. Gorski, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Robert J. Gower, Deputy District, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, Civil Division, Micah S. Echols, Esquire, Marquis & Aurbach, James Erbeck, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Las Vegas City Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, Sandra Douglass Morgan, Esquire, Acting City, City of North Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, NV, Nancy D. Savage, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Office of the City Attorney, Henderson, NV, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: REINHARDT and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss Appellants’ Complaint for failure to state a claim. See Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2008). For the reasons given by the district court, dismissal of Appellants’ Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not erroneous; however, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice, without granting Appellants leave to amend.

The district court determined that further amendment would be futile, based on the allegations contained in Appellants’ proposed First Amended Complaint. It did not, however, provide any specific explanation for that conclusion, but, rather, merely referenced the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Further, the dismissal with prejudice was contrary to the district court’s prior assurance that Appellants would be “allow[ed] leave to amend the [Cjomplaint to cure whatever deficiencies are present,” and would not be “married” to their proposed First Amended Complaint for purposes of the district court’s determination of the propriety of amendment. Under these circumstances, the failure to allow amendment constituted an abuse of discretion. See Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 898, 897-98 (9th Cir.2002).

We accordingly vacate the district court’s judgment dismissing Appellants’ Complaint with prejudice. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Costs awarded to plaintiffs. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     