The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in WILLIAMS v. ALAMEDIA, No. 05-55604, a Pacific Territories case. The panel consisted of Kim McLane Wardlaw, Carlos T. Bea, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

Upon receiving certification that Keith Lee Williams did not submit himself to California state authorities within the 60-day conditional period set forth in Williams v. Alameida, 511 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2007), we now dismiss Williams’s appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The mandate shall issue forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. 6089 . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in ALVAREZ v. HILL, No. 06-35068, a Pacific Territories case. The panel consisted of Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

FISHER, Circuit Judge:
We revisit in this appeal the longstanding principle that federal complaints plead claims, not causes of action or statutes or legal theories. Blackie Alvarez (”Alvarez”) brought suit alleging that prison officials substantially burdened his religious exercise by denying him various accommodations. Those officials (”appellees”) now insist that Alvarez’s failure to specifically plead in his complaint a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (”RLUIPA”), see 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, bars his argument that the district court erred in not analyzing his religious exercise claims under RLUIPA, which establishes a more protective standard than does the First Amendment. They are plainly incorrect. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. BACKGROUND In June 2004, Alvarez, then an inmate at the Oregon State River Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint seeking redress for violations of the “First [and] Fourteenth Amendments” on the part of prison officials. Alvarez alleged. . .