12(b)(6). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. D. Dismissal Without Leave to Amend Lastly, we consider whether the district court appropriately dismissed Vasquez’s complaint without leave to amend. Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir.2002). In light of our prior discussion, we are satisfied that Vasquez’s complaint falls short of stating a claim under the Establishment Clause in ways that could not be overcome by any amendment. Granting Vasquez leave to amend would have been futile, and we hold that the district court did not err in preventing such futility. See id. at 824 (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION In sum, although we conclude
recognizing utility of amendment as a proper basis for dismissal without leave to amend holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding that because proposed amendment changed the legal and factual basis of a claim leave to amend must be denied