T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I VA N V ON S T AI C H, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. A RN O LD SCH W A RZEN EG G ER, G o v e rn o ro f

C a lif o rn ia ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16390 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 2 3 5 - G EBGG H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ivan V on S t ai ch, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nti n hi s a c t i on a l l e gi ng de f e nda nt s vi ol a t e d the R e l i gi ous L a nd U s e a nd I ns t i tut i ona l i z e d P e r s ons A c tof 2000 ( “ R L U I P A ” ) byc ons i de r i ng



# FI LED OC T 12 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16390 2 gr oom i ng vi ol at i ons dur i ng hi s par ol e he ar i ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t. San J o s e Ch r is tia n C o ll. v . C ityo f Mo r g a n Hill , 3 6 0 F .3 d1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e r e v ie w f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to a m e n d . Ch a

p p e l v . L a b . C o r

p . o f A m ., 23 2 F . 3d 71 9, 72 5 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). W e m ay a f f irm o n a n yb a s is s up p o rte db yth e r e c o r d . D ittm a n v . Ca lifo rn ia , 191 F . 3d 1020, 1 0 2 7 n .3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e a f f irm . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r an te ds u m m aryju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d an ts be c aus e , a s ar e s ul tof

as e tt l e m e nti n anothe rc a s e , V on S t a i c h ha d a l l r e c e nt g r o o m in g v io la tio n s r e m o v e df r o m h is c e n tr a l f

ile , an dth e c o n s id e r a tio n o f h is e a r lie rv io la tio n s d idn o t im p o s e as ub s tan tia l b u r d e n o n h is r e lig io u s e x e r c is e . See Sa n J o s e Ch r is tia n C o ll., 360 F . 3d a t1034 ( “ [ A ] s ubs t ant i a l bur de n on r e l i gi ous exer ci se m usti m po se a s i gn i fi cant l y gre atre stri ct i on or on us up on such exer ci se . ”) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; cf . W a rso ld i er v. W

o o d f o rd , 418 F . 3d 989, 996 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( f

i ndi ng as ubs t a nt i a l bur de n be c aus e the gr oom i ng pol i c yput pres sure on i nm at es t o aband on thei r r el i gi ou s bel i ef s) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n ind en yin g V o n S taich ’s m ot i on t o f

i l e aF ourth A m e nde d C om pl a i nta f t e rpr ope r l yf

i ndi ng undue de l ayand09- 16390 3 p r e ju d ic e to th e d e f

e n d a n ts . See L ockheed M art i n C orp. v. N

etw ork Solut i on s, Inc. , 19 4 F . 3d 98 0, 98 6 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). V o n S ta ic h ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.