Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02799/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02799-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN VON STAICH, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; LINDA L. RIANDA,

Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch,

individually and in her official capacity;

and CTF-Soledad Captain J. CLANCY, 

in his official capacity,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-2799 PJH (PR)

ORDER REOPENING CASE;

SCHEDULING ORDER

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In his complaint he

contended that cutting his hair to comply with the prison grooming policy, which limited

prisoners’ hair to three inches in length, would violate his Nazirite religious beliefs, and that

the punishment he received for failing to comply with the grooming policy violated Section

1983; 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

(RLUIPA); and 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Several claims were dismissed in the initial review order. After service and briefing,

the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants, Rianda and

Clancy, entered judgment and closed the case. 

Plaintiff appealed the judgment in this case and that in a parallel habeas case, Von

Staich v. Hamlet, No. C 02-5305 PJH (PR). The cases were consolidated on appeal. The

Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in the habeas case and affirmed as to most points in

this case, but reversed as to plaintiff’s ADA claim and his injunctive relief claim under

Case 4:04-cv-02799-PJH Document 61 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

RLUIPA. The court remanded “to allow plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.”

Although plaintiff has not requested leave to amend, the circuit’s remand requires

that he be granted leave to amend to allege that he is suffering “on-going punishment for

his overlong beard.” Plaintiff therefore will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces all previous complaints, see

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), the amended complaint must

contain all the claims plaintiff wishes to pursue. In deciding which to include, he should

bear in mind that the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under section 1983 was affirmed on

appeal, so those claims cannot be reinserted into the case in the amended complaint. On

the other hand, the circuit reversed as to the court’s holding that the ADA claim was not

exhausted and as to the injunctive relief portion of his RLUIPA claim. Those claims

therefore may be included in the amended complaint. 

Plaintiff should note that the circuit’s instruction on remand was to allow amendment

to allege “on-going punishment for his overlong beard,” so that is the limit of the new claims

which may be included; if he wishes to raise other new claims, he must first obtain

permission from the court or a written stipulation to the amendment from the opposing

parties. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). 

CONCLUSION

1. The clerk shall reopen this case.

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the

date this order is entered. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the case. Upon

amendment the court will enter a scheduling order setting deadlines for further dispositive

motions or trial.

3. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Case 4:04-cv-02799-PJH Document 61 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.04\STAICH799.REOPEN.wpd 

Case 4:04-cv-02799-PJH Document 61 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 3