NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, No. 23-2195 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00261-TLN-JDP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY W. LYNCH, Warden; FERGUS C. LECKIE, Captain; DESIREE M. PONGYAN, Captain; DANIEL S. STRATTON, Sergeant (A) Lt.; KEVIN W. HIBBARD, Sergeant; RYAN M. PRICE, Correctional Officer; IVAN A. AYALA, Correctional Officer; DESIREE GAYAGOY, Psychiatric Technician; EDGAR U. LOPEZ, Psychiatric Technician; PAMELA C. HESS, Mail Room Offices Services Supervisor II,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Benjamin Justin Brownlee, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

federal and state law claims stemming from being held in administrative

segregation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown,

630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We vacate and remand.

Although the district court properly dismissed Brownlee’s operative

complaint for failure to state a claim, the district court dismissed without first

providing notice of the claims’ deficiencies. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[B]efore dismissing a pro se complaint the district court

must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to

ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.”); Eldridge v.

Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (“While a statement of deficiencies

need not provide great detail or require district courts to act as legal advisors to pro

se plaintiffs, district courts must at least draft a few sentences explaining the

deficiencies.”).

We vacate and remand for the district court to provide Brownlee with notice

2 23-2195 of the claims’ deficiencies and an opportunity to amend her claims with the benefit

of that notice.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

3 23-2195