Ivan Von Staich v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

MEMORANDUM

Ivan Von Staich, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging defendants violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) by considering grooming violations during his parole hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 , 1029 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to amend. Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 , 1027 n. 3 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants because, as a result of a settlement in another case, Von Staich had all recent grooming violations removed from his central file, and the consideration of his earlier violations did not impose a substantial burden on his religious exercise. See San Jose Christian Coll., 360 F.3d at 1034 (“[A] substantial burden on religious exercise must impose a…