United States Ninth Circuit

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims need satisfy only the ordinary requirements of notice pleading, and a complaint's failure to cite RLUIPA does not preclude the plaintiff from subsequently asserting a claim based on that statute. In a suit alleging that prison officials substantially burdened plaintiff's religious exercise by denying him various accommodations, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part, and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's RLUIPA claim was presented to the district court because his complaint and subsequent filings provided defendants with "fair notice" of such claim, even though the statute was not cited in the complaint itself; and 2) the district court erred in not addressing plaintiff's RLUIPA claim.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/06/2008
• Decided 03/13/2008
• Published 03/13/2008

Judges

• FISHER, Circuit Judge:, Before: RAYMOND C. FISHER, RONALD M. GOULD and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Blackie F. Alvarez, pro se;  John B. Schochet (argued), Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Seattle, WA, and Michael B. King, Talmadge Law Group PLLC, Tukwila, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant., James McCurdy, Lindsey Hart Neil & Weigler, LLP, Portland, OR, for the amicus curiae ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc.


• For Appellees:
  
• Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, Michael C. Livingston, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rolf C. Moan (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for the defendants-appellees.