on liberal discovery rules and summary judgment motions to define disputed facts and issues and to dispose of unmeritorious claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). A complaint need not identify the statutory or constitutional source of the claim raised in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Sagana v. Tenorio, 384 F.3d 731, 736-37 (9th Cir.2004); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Cabrera v. Martin, 973 F.2d 735, 745 (9th Cir.1992). As contemplated by the regime of liberal notice pleading, Alvarez’s subsequent filings refined the factual allegations and legal'theories supporting his religious exercise claims. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329-30 & n. 9, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (<HOLDING>). His reference to RLUIPA in his “Motion in
holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment recognizing responsive pleadings  may be necessary for a pro se plaintiff to clarify his legal theories