Federal Court Documents: Church Sues Mountain Home, ID For Violation of Religious Rights

Case 1:11-cv-00255-EJL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 36
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Gary G. Allen, Esq.
GaryAllen@givenspursley.com
ID Bar No. 4366
601 W. Bannock
Boise, Idaho 83702
T: 208-388-1200
F: 208-388-1300
MAUCK & BAKER, LLC

John W. Mauck, Esq.*
jmauck@mauckbaker.com
IL Bar NO. 1797328
Noel W. Sterett, Esq.*
nsterett@mauckbaker.com
IL Bar NO. 6292008
1 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60602
T: 312-726-1243
F: 312 726-1039
Attorneys for Plaintiff

*Pending Admission Pro Hac Vice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
NO LIMITS CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES, Inc.,)

an Idaho church, individually )
and in its capacity as representative )
of certain individual members, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Case No.
)
CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOME, BONNIE ) COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND
HARPER, RUSS ANDERSON, GEOFF ) MONETARY RELIEF
SCHROEDER, ALAIN ISAAC, and )
JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10 in their )
official and individual capacities, ) Demand For Jury Trial
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________
1
Plaintiff, No Limits Christian Ministries, Inc., an Idaho church, individually and in its
capacity as representative of certain individual members, brings this action for declaratory
judgment, temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction and damages
arising from the Defendants’ discriminatory and unequal treatment of its religious assembly and
hereby alleges the following:
BACKGROUND AND PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, No Limits Christian Ministries (may be referred to hereafter as “NLCM”
or the “Church”), is an Idaho church that has been barred by the City of Mountain Home, Idaho
(the “City”) from exercising its rights to assemble for worship in its leased space at 535 N. Main
St., Mountain Home, Idaho 83647 (the “Property”) in violation of its First Amendment rights to
the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech and assembly; its Fourteenth Amendment
rights to equal protection under the law; its parallel rights under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 USC §2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”), the Idaho Religious
Freedom Act, Idaho Code § 73-402, and the Idaho Constitution.
2. No Limits Christian Ministries was founded in 2010 when Clark D. Williams, Sr.,
an ordained pastor and a licensed Christian counselor, and his wife Dana Williams began
meeting with people at their home for times of bible study, worship, counseling, and prayer. The
purpose of the meetings was to discover and exalt the hope and life found in Jesus and to counsel
those seeking marital, familial, and financial peace. Exhibit A, Declaration of Pastor Clark D.
Williams, Sr. (“Williams Dec.”) ¶¶ 1-3.
3. After only a couple of months, the William’s home could no longer accommodate
the number of people coming to the meetings, so in March 2010, Pastor Williams began
searching for a temporary location where they could have an office for counseling and space for
2
the growing congregation to meet and worship God until a more permanent space could be
found. Id. at ¶ 4.
4. At the time, Pastor Williams did not know that Mountain Home’s Zoning Code
did not permit a “church” use as of right in any of its zoning districts. Id. at ¶ 5; see Code
Chapter 4, 9-4-4: Land Use Chart attached as Exhibit B.
5. In March 2010, NLCM began renting the Odd Fellow’s Hall located at 155 N 3rd
E St, Mountain Home for limited Sunday and Tuesday use and continues to meet there for
worship, which is on information and belief an accessory use of the building. Ex. A, Williams
Dec. at ¶ 6.
6. NLCM, now a congregation of about 60-70 people, is predominantly African-
American and includes many military families living in and around Mountain Home and the
United States Air Force base located there. Id. at ¶ 7.
7. Meeting at the Odd Fellow’s Hall and lacking a permanent meeting location
effectively precludes or substantially burdens the religious exercise of the NLCM congregation
in the following ways (Id. at ¶ 8):
i. NLCM is only able to use the space on Tuesdays and Sundays;
ii. Sunday services are from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.;
iii. Seating capacity is limited to 60 people;
iv. NLCM cannot conduct its Sunday service in the same manner as it would
in its own space at 535 N. Main St.;
v. NLCM lacks the freedom to hold special prayer meetings, singing and
musical performances, outreach functions, and social gatherings of the
congregation;
3
vi. Odd Fellow’s Hall is not suitable for religious ceremonies such as
weddings, baptisms, and memorial services;
vii. Odd Fellow’s Hall precludes NLCM’s ability to provide adequate nursery
and children’s ministry services during worship because it is a temporary
location and not designed to accommodate such services. As a result,
parents and families who attend NLCM cannot fully cooperate in the
worship service or be ministered to or have their children given the level
of teaching and support in a child-friendly atmosphere NLCM feels called
to provide. At Odd Fellow’s Hall, the children must be in the church
service along with the adults, resulting in numerous interruptions and
distractions;
viii. NLCM is faced with the real possibility of losing those families and
possible new members because of NLCM’s inability to provide such
childcare at Odd Fellow’s Hall;
ix. NLCM is unable to use expressions of faith through decoration because it
cannot affix items on the walls at Odd Fellow’s Hall;
x. NLCM cannot grow;
xi. NLCM cannot provide regular counsel at this building;
xii. Odd Fellow’s Hall is old and falling apart. People are afraid of injury and
concerned for their safety. During the Fall of 2010, a ceiling tile fell on
one of the members;
xiii. The building leaks when it rains or snows;
xiv. The building is bug infested with ants and termites coming out of walls;
4
xv. On street parking is hard to come by because the Catholic church around
the corner takes the little parking that is available; and
xvi. Some people are not comfortable worshiping in the same building along
with different spiritual groups and fraternities (Mason's, Odd Fellow’s,
etc.) and therefore, they will not come to the temporary location.
xvii. NLCM has to break down and set-up each time to have service which
wears on the members and causes damage to equipment.
8. NLCM is registered as a not-for-profit organization under the laws of Idaho which
operates as a church, and is tax-exempt pursuant to IRS Code §501(c)(3). Id. at ¶ 9.
9. In July 2010, the NLCM found the Property which is owned by the Salvation
Army, was vacant, and once housed the Salvation Army Thrift Store, Id. at ¶ 10, as shown in the
following two photos (the first of which shows the Google® Aerial image of the Property and
the second of which shows Google® street-view of the property looking East from N. Main St.:
5
10. Defendant, the City of Mountain Home, Idaho, is a public entity and a municipal
organization existing and operating under the laws of Idaho, whose principal business address
160 South 3rd East, Mountain Home, ID 83647. The City is sued for its facially illegal zoning
code and for the official actions of its employees, staff, agents, and the City Council which were
done under the color of state law and violated the Church’s clearly established federal rights.
11. Defendants RUSS ANDERSON, GEOFF SCHROEDER, and ALAIN ISAAC are
residents of Idaho who serve on the City Council of Mountain Home and are sued in their
individual capacities for violating Plaintiffs’ clearly established rights by voting, in their
administrative 1 roles, to deny NLCM a conditional use permit for its religious assembly.
1
In Kaahumanu v. County of Maui, Ninth Circuit determined that Council members’ action
denying a conditional use permit was administrative rather than legislative in nature, and
therefore not entitled to legislative immunity. 315 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2003).
6
12. Defendant BONNIE HARPER is the City Planner for Mountain Home and is sued
in her individual capacity for violating Plaintiff’s clearly established rights by going outside the
scope of her duties to actively oppose NLCM’s efforts to reach agreement with neighboring
property owners for parking.
13. Defendants ANDERSON, SCHROEDER, ISAAC, and HARPER, along with
John/Jane Does 1-10 are municipal officials, employees, or independent contractors of Mountain
Home who, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of the Church’s clearly
established federal rights. They are sued regarding the “as applied” challenges of this Complaint
and not the facial challenges to the Code.
John/Jane Does 1-10 have conspired with each other and/or the municipality to violate the civil
rights of the Church under RLUIPA and the United States Constitution by treating the Church in
a discriminatory fashion and by creating undue burdens, expenses, delay, and uncertainty in the
Church’s efforts to use the Property for religious assembly and exercise.
John/Jane Does 1-10 knew or should have known that their actions violated the Church’s clearly
established federal rights for the following reasons:
i. Generally, they are presumed to know the law as City Officials;
ii. Specifically, they are charged with knowing zoning and land use law in
their oversight and application of Mountain Home’s zoning;
iii. The Supreme Court precedents of City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living
Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) and Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452
U.S. 61 (1981) were established over 25 years ago;
7
iv. RLUIPA was passed over ten years ago in 2000.
FURTHER ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Unlawful Opposition to Religious Activity In the Building Permit and Occupancy Process
16. NLCM and its members hold sincerely held religious beliefs which compel them
to conduct the following religious ministries and speech activity (Id. at ¶ 13):
i. weekly assembly of the congregation to worship (Hebrews 10:25);
ii. weekly preaching, including speech relating to personal morality, God,
social, and cultural issues (2 Timothy 4:2);
iii. pastoral counseling for the disturbed, lonely and bereaved;
iv. prayer meetings (Acts 1:13-14);
v. singing and musical performances (Psalms 81:1-2);
vi. baptisms, weddings, funerals, and communion (Matthew 28:19; Luke
22:19);
vii. Bible studies;
viii. nurseries or Sunday school for infants and toddlers;
ix. youth activities, including games and sports;
x. social gatherings such as church dinners;
xi. service projects for members of the congregation, the poor, and the
general community, and seniors groups (James 1:27);
xii. expression of faith through the display of signs, crosses, paintings,
banners, or decorations;
xiii. evangelism - sharing the Christian message and encouraging others to
believe in Jesus the Messiah, particularly those who visit their church meetings;
8
xiv. financial giving and fundraising events to support salaries, building costs,
the poor, and ministries for members of the congregation;
xv. meeting in a more permanent location to proclaim the Gospel message;
xvi. feeding and/or ministering to the homeless;
xvii. house a food pantry; and
xviii. host alcohol and drug recovery meetings (Celebrate Recovery).
17. The other properties NLCM found on the market in Mountain Home were asking
$1500 to $3600 a month for 2 to 3 times less space and did not include an option to purchase or
right of first offer to purchase. The other properties were too expensive for NLCM and/or
inadequate for NLCM’s ministry needs. Ex. A, Williams Dec. ¶ 11.
18. On or about November 4, 2010, the Church successfully negotiated a three year
lease with the Salvation Army for the Property with a right of first offer to purchase at the end of
the term. Ex. A, Williams Dec. ¶ 12.
19. The Church seeks to utilize the existing improvements on the Property in such a
way that would accommodate its religious assembly and ministries in furtherance of the Church
and its members’ sincerely held religious beliefs which motivate them to preach the Gospel of
Jesus the Messiah, worship together, minister to others, and share their faith with others in and
around Mountain Home. Id. at ¶ 14.
20. On or about November 15, 2010, Pastor Williams applied for a building permit to
allow NLCM to remodel the premises to accommodate the counseling ministry and was
informed that no religious services could be conducted at the Property without a Conditional Use
Permit was approved. Id. at ¶ 15.
9
21. Once NLCM had a building permit, they immediately set to work repairing and
renovating the premises and expended approximately $10,000 in the process. Id. at ¶ 16.
22. NLCM submitted an architectural drawing of how the property would be set up,
with offices, and the largest room would be the multipurpose room, for conferences and
eventually the sanctuary, once a CUP was granted. Id. at ¶ 17.
23. On or about November 22, 2010, Michael McCain, the City’s primary Building
Official conducted an initial inspection of the Property and informed Pastor Williams both orally
and in writing that “No religious service could be held at this location before a Conditional Use
Permit was approved” and “if any services of this kind were held the Certificate of Occupancy
would be revoked.” See Id. at ¶ 18; Inspection History Report For Permit: 379 attached as
Exhibit C.
24. Pastor Williams had explained to Mr. McCain and City Planner Bonnie Harper
that his counseling ministry entailed the use of the multi-purpose space available in the building
for group counseling sessions including sessions entitled “Financial Peace,” group sessions using
Family Life resources for marriage and family counseling, and even rallies for men as part of the
“Men At The Cross” discipleship program. Ex. A, Williams Dec. at ¶ 19.
25. After being informed of the nature of his counseling, Mr. McCain warned Pastor
Williams that he could not use the multi-purpose space room for groups and could only counsel
“one or two people at a time” because that is what he considered counseling to be and threatened
Pastor Williams with revocation or denial of a Certificate of Occupancy if NLCM did not
comply. Id. at ¶ 20.
26. City Planner Bonnie Harper of the Planning and Zoning Department also
informed Pastor Williams of the same restrictions and penalty for allowing religious assembly
10
use and activity at the Property without a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) from the City
Council. Id. at ¶ 21.
27. Mr. McCain again inspected the property on January 19, 2011 and noted a
number of items that needed to be corrected before a certificate of occupancy could be issued. Id.
at ¶ 22.
28. Within about nine days, NLCM had corrected all but two of the items and on
January 28, 2011, Mr. McCain re-inspected the Property and issued NLCM the Certificate of
Occupancy attached as Exhibit D which allows the building to be used for “Counseling” and
notes that the “Occupant Load” is 290. see also Ex. C.
29. Building Official Michael McCain issued a building permit (no. 379) in
November 2010 to allow NLCM to renovate the property on the express condition that no
religious services or activities would be held at the Property without a CUP. Ex. A, Williams
Dec. at ¶ 24; Ex. D.
Discriminatory Zoning and Burden of the CUP Requirement on Religious Assembly
30. Indeed, Mountain Home’s Zoning Code (the “Code”) totally excludes religious
assemblies from all of its zoning districts. Churches 2 are not specified as a permitted use under
any article or section. Code Chapter 4, 9-4-4: Land Use Chart attached as Ex. B . In order to
locate at the Property which is located in a C-3 (General Business) zone, the Church must apply
for and obtain from the City Council a CUP. see City of Mountain Home Zoning Map attached
as Exhibit E (property is located in most westward district in yellow which the legend identifies
as C-3 General Business).
2
The Code defines “CHURCH/RELIGIOUS FACILITIES” as “[a] building or structure, or
groups of buildings or structures, which by design and construction are primarily intended for the
conducting of organized religious services and/or a household unit for persons employed in the
building.” Code Chapter 3, 9-3-2: Definitions.
11
31. To obtain a conditional use permit, the Code on its face asserts that the Church
(and all other CUP applicants) has the burden to prove that its use at the proposed location:
***
A. Will, in fact, constitute an allowed conditional use in that zone, as

determined by the use chart in chapter 4 of this title; or is a legal existing
nonconforming land use or structure;
B. Will be in accordance with goals and objectives of the Mountain Home

comprehensive plan and with all the applicable provisions of this zoning
ordinance;
C. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious

with the existing or the intended character of the general vicinity and that
such use and/or expansion will not change the essential character of the
same area;
D. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses;
E. Will be served adequately by existing essential public facilities and

services such as highways, streets, schools, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer or that the person
responsible for the establishment of the proposed conditional use shall be
able to provide adequately any such services;
F. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare
of the community;
G. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or

conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property
or the general welfare by reason of the environment, or excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors;
H. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed

as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
and
I. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic

feature of major importance.
Code Chapter 18, 9-18-8: Conditional Uses, attached hereto as Exhibit F.
12
32. In addition, as a “conditional use” the Church would be subject to the Mountain
Home Council’s power and discretion to prescribe and require additional “conditions, bonds,
studies, reports, and safeguards.” A failure to comply with such additional restrictions could
result in the loss of the conditional use permit. Id.
33. In further violation of the right to equal protection of the law, the Code also
permits, as of right (does not require a CUP), the following non-religious assembly uses in the
same C-3 zone:
A. Amusement center/indoors
B. Art galleries
C. Clubs and lodges (profit and nonprofit)
D. Classes/piano, dance, ceramics, and craft for more than 5 people
E. Exercise/health spas
F. Bowling alleys
G. Hotel/motels
H. Enclosed recreation facilities
I. Trade Schools
J. Senior citizen centers
Code Chapter 4, 9-4-4: Land Use Chart attached as Ex. B
Opposition to Religious Activity In The Conditional Use Permit Process
34. Despite the unequal treatment and unreasonable limitations imposed by the
Mountain Home Code on religious assemblies and City Official’s unlawful opposition to its
religious activity, NLCM applied on or about December 6, 2010, for a CUP to conduct religious
assembly at that the Property. Ex. A, Williams Dec. at ¶ 25; CUP application attached as Ex. G.
13
35. On February 7, 2011, Mountain Home’s Planning and Zoning Board (the
“Board”) heard NLCM’s application for a CUP for the Church use of the premises, and in a split
vote, the Board voted to recommend that the City Council approve a CUP for NLCM’s religious
assembly and indicated orally that the Board was going to recommend some conditions to the
Council primarily related to parking and sewage. Id. at ¶ 26.
36. The Board did not provide NLCM with a comprehensive list of those conditions
before the application was heard by the City Council at a public hearing on February 14, 2011.
Id. at ¶ 27.
37. Prior to the City Council meeting on February 14, 2011 meeting, Pastor Williams
received word that City Planner Bonnie Harper actively called and harassed neighboring
businesses that were considering volunteering their parking lots for NLCM’s use. The store
manager for Airmen Pawn Shop located across the street from the Church submitted a signed
agreement to us allowing NLCM to use its parking lot even though Ms. Harper called the
manager demanding to know “Why are you letting those people use your parking lot, they are
going to be parking all over the place?” Id. at ¶ 28.
38. On information and belief, the City Planner also put pressure on Albertson’s
grocery store not to agree to let NLCM use its available parking. Id. at ¶ 29.
39. To the issue of parking, the Code provides that places of private assembly have 1
parking space per each 4 seats or 1 for each 28 sq. feet of the largest multipurpose, gym or
auditorium, whichever is greater. For some non-religious assembly uses such as theaters only 1
seat per every 5 seats is required regardless of square footage.
40. In NLCM’s case the City determined that NLCM had to provide over 70 parking
spots even though its congregation is currently only 60-70 people. On information and belief,
14
the City instead calculated NLCM’s parking obligation from what his estimation that the
building’s square footage allows for a maximum capacity of 282 persons. Id. at ¶ 30.
41. The City Council first considered Plaintiff’s application on February 14, 2011, but
since NLCM did not have a comprehensive list of preconditions to meet, Councilwoman Alain
Isaac and Councilman Schroeder made a motion (that was passed) to send the application back to
the Planning & Zoning Board until all the conditions were met. See Minutes of the February 14,
2011 City Council meeting attached hereto as Exhibit H.
42. As a follow up to the City Council meeting on February 14, 2011, City Planner
Bonnie Harper and Building and Zoning Official Michael F. McCain wrote the letter attached as
Exhibit I to Pastor Williams regarding his application and what the Council was requiring of
NLCM.
***
1. Provide a Parking Lot Joint Use Agreement from at least one neighboring
property owner to fulfill the forty-eight (48) off-street parking space
deficiency for a total of 71 parking spaces.
2. Provide verification that the building has a functioning septic tank or that
it is connected to the City’s sewer line.
3. Make a request to Idaho Transportation Department to repaint the

crosswalks on North Main St.
4. Submit a landscape plan to show how NLCM will make improvements to

the North Main St. frontage and showing the location of the trash bin and
how it will be screened from view.
***
43. To the issue of the septic system, NLCM showed the City Council that its current
septic tank is operational and suitable for a congregation NLCM’s size, however the City’s
15
asserted 282 occupancy projection requires NLCM to pay to have the sewer connected to city
sewage. Ex. A, Williams Dec. at ¶ 33.
44. Despite the opposition, NLCM went the extra mile and persevered in reaching
agreements with neighboring property owners to try meet the City’s parking demands (see
attached as Exhibits J & K), hired Bowman plumbing to inspect, purge, and verify the septic
tank was working properly, and received a letter from stating that the crosswalk as shown in the
Google® street-view image below would be repainted (Exhibit M) and had a sufficient
landscape plan. Ex. A, Williams Dec. at ¶ 34.
45. Between February 17, 2011 and April 1, 2011, Pastor Williams was in regular
contact with the Union Pacific Railroad and the Salvation Army in order to work out the parking
issues and sewage connection. Id. at ¶ 35.
46. NLCM retained Corder LLC to connect the Property to the City sewer. Id. at ¶ 36.
47. On April 14, 2011, NLCM’s spokesperson, former Mayor Joe McNeal,
approached the current mayor, building official, and city planner to review everything NLCM
16
had accomplished in resolving the issues, and attempted to get us access to the new building for
our Easter/Passover service, but we were denied. Id. at ¶ 37.
48. NLCM appeared again before the Planning & Zoning Board on May 2, 2011, and
the first question NCLM received from the Board was essentially, “Why are you all back here?
We approved you the first time.” Id. at ¶ 38.
49. At the end of the meeting, all members of the Planning & Zoning Board voted
“Yes” to recommend to the City Council issuance of a CUP and from Pastor Williams
perspective, the Board appeared pleased with the parking arrangements and the progress on the
sewage. Id. at ¶ 39.
50. To appear before the City Council the following week the City, without legal
authority, had required NLCM to provide notice in excess of the Code requirement to property
owners within a 600 ft. radius of the property as opposed to the 300 ft. radius as required by the
code. Ex. A, Williams Dec. ¶ 40; Code Section 9-18-10 attached as Exhibit L.
51. After NLCM provided the requested notice, the City Council scheduled another
public hearing on the application on May 9, 2011. Ex. A, Williams Dec. ¶42
52. In addition, at the City’s request, NLCM provided the City with a letter, attached
as Exhibit N, that it would waive its right to protest any future commercial activities relating to
the sale or consumption of alcohol in the downtown area. Id. at ¶ 41.
53. At the public hearing, NLCM and public were given the opportunity to testify
concerning the application. No one from the public ever spoke in opposition to NLCM’s
application at the City Council or at the Planning & Zoning Board. Former Mayor Joe McNeal
spoke in favor of our application. Id. at ¶ 43.
17
54. By a unanimous vote, the City Council voted on May 9, 2011 to deny NLCM a
conditional use permit. Copy of the Unsigned Minutes of the May 9, 2011 Council meeting
attached as Ex. O; Ex. A, Williams Dec. ¶ 44; see also Mountain Home News article attached as
Exhibit P.
55. The City Council has yet to publish a written reason for denial and failed to
specify any one of the CUP “standards” the Church (per paragraph 30) did not meet. Ex. A,
Williams Dec. ¶ 45.
56. The CUP process has caused the Church to incur upwards of $10,000.00 in
expenses, lost offerings, and other expense. Id. at ¶ 46.
57. The CUP costs and expenses would not have been required of NLCM for zoning
approval if churches were a permitted use at the Property. Id. at ¶ 47.
58. NLCM’s tithes and offerings have decreased as a result of the City of Mountain
Home’s opposition to NLCM’s religious assembly at the Property. Id. at ¶ 48.
59. Due to Mountain Home’s zoning restrictions and enforcement action, NLCM’s
average weekly church attendance has dropped. Id. at ¶ 49.
60. During this time, NLCM has also lost the opportunity to add new members due to
Mountain Home’s prohibition of the Church from locating at its desired location, a place that
affords much needed additional space and easier access for attendees. Id. at ¶ 50.
61. Many of the Church’s specific ministry opportunities are being lost forever every
day because NLCM is not able to operate as a church at the Property. Id. at ¶ 51.
62. NLCM has lost its momentum in ministering to the citizens of Mountain Home as
a result of the City’s opposition to its religious assembly at the Property. Id. at ¶ 52.
18
63. Mountain Home, by force of its zoning code and in violation of both federal and
state law, is denying the Church the use of property which it has contracted to lease for religious
exercise and assembly. In doing so, Mountain Home is inflicting irreparable harm on the
congregation. The Church accordingly challenges Mountain Home’s zoning provisions both
facially and as-applied to its religious exercise, speech, and assembly.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
64. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and
Fourteenth Amendments; and under federal law, particularly 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202; 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 1988; and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”).
65. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims by operation of
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
66. This Court has authority to issue the requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201.
67. This Court has authority to issue the requested injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and the requested damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
68. This Court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
69. This Court is authorized to grant the “appropriate relief” that the Plaintiff requests
under RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2.
70. This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related State
Claims by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
71. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in this District because this claim arose
here, because Defendant is situated within the District, because the material events occurred
19
here, and because the law alleged to be facially illegal is being enforced in the City of Mountain
Home, Idaho.
ALLEGATIONS OF LAW
72. Each and all of the acts alleged herein, including any decision to deny the Church
a use conditional use permit, were done by the Defendants Mountain Home, members of the City
Council, and John/Jane Does 1-10 under the color and pretense of state law, statutes, ordinances,
regulations, customs, usages, and policies.
73. Mountain Home, all individual defendants, and John/Jane Does 1-10 have
enforced the challenged Code against the Plaintiff.
74. The Church’s religious worship, religious expression, and religious assembly are
protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
75. Concomitantly, the use of a facially illegal zoning ordinance or the illegal
application of a facially legal ordinance to deny the Church use of the Property for protected
religious worship, religious expression, religious assembly, and religious association is a
violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and RLUIPA.
76. Unless and until the Mountain Home’s interference of the Church’s use and
ministries are enjoined, the Church will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable harm to its
federal constitutional and statutory rights, as well as damages.
77. The Church has no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the
deprivations to their constitutional and civil rights.
78. Mountain Home will suffer no harm if injunctive relief is granted to the Church.
79. The harm to the Church far outweighs any harm to Mountain Home.
20
80. The public interest is benefited when constitutional and civil rights are protected.
81. The Church alleges the following twelve causes of action against Defendants.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

CITY’S VIOLATION OF RLUIPA EXCLUSION PROVISION OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE UNREASONABLE LIMITATION PROVISION
(FACIAL CHALLENGE TO MOUNTAIN HOME CODE)
82. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by
reference.
83. RLUIPA defines the phrase “religious exercise” to include “the use, building, or
conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-
5(7)(B).
84. RLUIPA Section 2(b)(3) “Exclusions and Limits” provides that:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that:

(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures
within a jurisdiction.
85. RLUIPA was enacted in 2000 after three years of Congressional hearings which
produced a record of “massive evidence” that the “core First Amendment right to assemble for
religious purposes” and the indispensable adjunct right of a Church to “build, buy or rent” a
physical space “adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements” is
“frequently violated.” 146 CONG. REC. S7774-01, §S7774.
86. The Congressional record revealed that:
Churches in general, and new, small, or unfamiliar churches in particular, are

frequently discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and also in the highly
individualized and discretionary processes of land use legislation. Zoning codes
frequently exclude churches in places where they permit theaters, meetings halls, and
other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the
codes permit churches only with individualized permission from the zoning board,
and zoning boards use that authority in a discriminatory ways. Id.
21
87. Congress found the discrimination often “lurks behind such vague and universally
applicable reasons as “traffic, aesthetics, or ‘not consistent with the city’s land use plan.” Id.
88. On its face, Mountain Home’s Code totally excludes religious assemblies from its
entire jurisdiction.
89. The legislative history of RLUIPA further reveals that:
Section 2(b)(3), on exclusion or unreasonable limitation of religious uses, enforces

the Free Speech Clause as interpreted in Schad v. City of Mount Ephraim, N.J., 425
U.S. 61 (1981) which held that a municipality cannot entirely exclude a category of
first amendment activity. ... Section 2(b)(3) enforces the right to assemble for
worship or other religious exercise under the Free Exercise Clause, and the hybrid
free speech and free exercise right to assemble for worship or other religious exercise
under Schad and [Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)]. 146 CONG.
REC. at § S7776.
90. By failing to allow churches as a “permitted use” anywhere in its jurisdiction, the
City of Mountain Home has entirely excluded a category of first amendment activity, and in the
alternative, has unreasonably limited the Church’s hybrid free speech and free exercise right to
assemble for worship.
91. Mountain Home’s Code requirement that religious assembly uses, like the
Church, go through the costly, discretionary and arbitrary conditional use permitting process
selectively imposes an unreasonable limitation on the Church that is not imposed on other non-
religious assembly uses.
92. By forcing the Church to go through the costly, discretionary, and arbitrary use
conditional use permit application process and to have to wait an unspecified amount of time to
learn whether the application would be approved or denied by a discretionary board of decision
makers, Mountain Home’s Code precludes the Church and its members from preaching the
Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, worshipping, ministering to others, and sharing their faith with
22
others at the Property, and thereby places an unreasonable limitation on their sincerely held
religious beliefs.
93. Mountain Home lacks a rational basis—let alone a compelling interest—that
would justify their denial of the Church’s use of the Property or a conditional use permit that
would allow for the Church to use the Property as a church.
94. Mountain Home will be unable to demonstrate that preventing the use of the
Property as a church will be the most narrowly tailored alternative to achieving any
governmental interest it may claim to have.
95. Freely permitting non-religious assembly activities as of right in the C-3 zone but
requiring a conditional use permit for similar group activities that are religious in nature is an
unreasonable limitation on churches like the Plaintiff.
96. Mountain Home’s Code therefore violates Section 2(b) (3)(A) and 2(b)(3)B of
RLUIPA.
WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court grant the relief set forth in
the Prayer For Relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

CITY’S VIOLATION OF RLUIPA EQUAL TERMS PROVISION
(FACIAL AND AS APPLIED CHALLENGE TO MOUNTAIN HOME’S CODE)
reference.
98. Section 2(b)(1) of RLUIPA prohibits Mountain Home from treating a religious
assembly use less favorably than a non-religious assembly use:
A. Equal Terms
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner
that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a
nonreligious assembly or institution.
23
99. Examples of nonreligious assemblies that the legislative history identifies as
comparable to religious assemblies include “banquet halls, clubs, community centers, funeral
parlors, fraternal organizations, health clubs, gyms, places of amusement, recreation centers,
lodges, libraries, museums, municipal buildings, meeting halls, and theaters.” (italics added) H.
REP. 106-219 at 19 (July 1, 1999).
100. In Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Twp., the District Court found that there can
be no rational basis to require a religious assembly to obtain special approval in a district where
nonreligious assembly uses are permitted as of right. 161 F. Supp. 2d 432, 434 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
101. Mountain Home’s Code freely permits the nonreligious assembly uses listed
under paragraph 32 above. However, the Code prohibits the Church from using its property for
religious assembly unless and until Mountain Home gives it restricted and special permission by
way of a conditional use permit.
102. Mountain Home’s Code through its CUP process permits its officials to make
“individualized assessments,” within the meaning of Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872,
884 (1990) and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 537 (1993), of
the proposed uses of property within the City, including the Church’s property.
103. Mountain Home imposed and implemented a land use regulation treating the
Church on less than equal terms with non-religious assemblies, and in doing so violated RLUIPA
§ 2(b)(1).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

CITY’S VIOLATION OF RLUIPA SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN PROVISION
(FACIAL AND AS APPLIED CHALLENGE TO MOUNTAIN HOME CODE)
24
reference.
105. Section 2000cc (a)(1) of RLUIPA provides:
A. General rule.
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that imposes a

substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious
assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the
burden on that person, assembly, or institution—
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.
106. Mountain Home’s Code requiring religious assembly uses, like the Church, to go
through the costly, discretionary, and arbitrary use conditional use permit application process
selectively imposes a substantial burden on the Church that is not imposed on certain other non-
religious assembly uses.
107. The imposition by Mountain Home and its officials of conditional use permit
application requirements on the Church which resulted in incurred expenses of upwards of
$10,000.00 coupled with five months delay and burdens on the ministry such as those set forth in
paragraph 7 above created a “substantial burden” on the Church within the meaning of RLUIPA
2(a)(1).
108. By forcing the Church to go through the costly, discretionary, and arbitrary use
conditional use permit application process and to have to wait five months to learn whether the
application would be approved or denied by a discretionary board of decision makers, Mountain
Home and its Code are precluding the Church and its members from assembling together to hear
the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, to worship, to minister to others, and to share
25
their faith with others at the Property (or at any other property in the jurisdiction), and are
thereby substantially burdening their sincerely held religious beliefs.
109. Mountain Home and its City Council’s denial of NLCM’s CUP application
constitutes a substantial burden on NLCM’s religious exercise. See Guru Nanak Sikh Soc'y v.
County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2006).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
reference.
111. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution requires that the government treat similarly situated assembly uses equally.
112. Groups can assemble for educational, social, cultural, political, and recreational
purposes at a club, lodge, theater, senior citizen center, etc., without needing a conditional use
permit from Mountain Home, but if a principal use of the property as a “Church” is for religious
assembly purposes a conditional use permit is required.
113. The only reason the Church’s group activities are being treated more restrictively
is the religious content of its expression and assembly.
114. The use, in and throughout the Mountain Home Code, of the word “Church” to
regulate land uses so defined is a governmental regulation based upon religion. According to the
United States Supreme Court, religion is a “suspect category” when regulated by government
and “a law that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment or advances legitimate
26
governmental interests only against conduct with a religious motivation will survive strict
scrutiny only in rare cases. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S.
1993).
115. There is not a rational basis—let alone a compelling governmental interest—for
the Code to permit non-religious assembly uses in the C-3 zones but forbid religious assembly
uses without a “conditional use permit.”
116. Mountain Home’s Code therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
117. Defendants (ANDERSON, SCHROEDER, ISAAC, and HARPER) acted under
color of state law in such a manner that treated NLCM on an unequal basis in violation of
NCLM’s clearly established rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
118. Defendants’ actions deprived NLCM and the members of its congregation of
equal protection of the laws by using their actions and discretion to oppose NLCM’s religious
assembly at the Property where nonreligious assemblies are permitted as of right.
119. Defendants’ actions in opposing and deny NLCM the right to assemble for
worship at the Property do not serve a compelling governmental interest, nor are they narrowly
tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CITY’S VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
27
reference.
121. Mountain Home’s Code requirement that religious assembly uses, such as that of
the Church, go through the discretionary, costly, and arbitrary conditional use permit application
process infringes on the free exercise rights of the Church.
122. Mountain Home’s Code prohibitions of a Church use at the Property has forced
the Church and its members to completely forego conducting religious exercises and practices at
the property the Church found to be “adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological
requirements.” 146 Cong. Rec. at S7774.
123. Mountain Home’s Code restricts religious assembly uses because of their
religious motivation and/or character.
124. Mountain Home’s Code selectively imposes burdens only on assembly uses that
are religious in motivation and/or character that it does not impose on many assembly uses which
are non-religious in motivation and/or character.
125. Mountain Home’s Code infringes on the Church’s hybrid rights of free exercise,
freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. See Church of the Lukumi
Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
126. Mountain Home’s Code therefore violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
28
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF

RELIGION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
reference.
color of state law in such a manner that violated NLCM and its congregation’s clearly
established rights to free exercise of religion.
129. Defendants’ actions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CITY’S VIOLATION OF NLCM’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
reference.
131. The Church’s religious speech activities—preaching, singing, worship, prayer,
and teaching—are protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
132. In prohibiting and/or unreasonably limiting, through its zoning law, the location
of religious organizations like the Church, the Mountain Home Code restricts the Church’s free
speech.
133. Mountain Home’s ban of religious assembly uses is a content-based restriction on
speech because it restricts religious speech by prohibiting new churches from locating in the City
29
and subjects the Church’s free speech to the highly discretionary conditional use permit process
which acts as a prior restraint on the Church’s speech.
134. Mountain Home’s Code and actions that prohibit the Church from locating as of
right in any of its districts do not leave open ample alternative channels of communication and
does not qualify as a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction. See Grayned v. City of
Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116-117 (1971).
135. Mountain Home’s Code is unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps within
its ambit protected First Amendment religious speech. See Schad v. Mount Ephraim, N.J., 425
U.S. 61, 75-76 (1981).
136. Mountain Home’s Code operates as an impermissible prior restraint on speech,
granting overly broad discretion to decision-making officials to decide whether to exclude
religious uses, including but not limited to expressive assembly such as NLCM’s worship
gathering.
137. Mountain Home’s Code and actions chill the Church’s right to free speech.
138. The City lacks a compelling interest to justify its limitations on religious speech
through its Code and actions.
139. Mountain Home may not suppress protected speech absent a showing of a clear
and present danger of riot, disorder, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order.
140. The Church’s religious use and speech in the C-3 zone (or in any other zoning
district of the City) does not implicate any threat to public safety, peace, or order, thereby
illustrating the Code’s lack of narrow tailoring.
30
141. Mountain Home’s Code accordingly violates the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF NLCM’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
reference.
color of state law in such a manner that violated NLCM’s clearly established First Amendment
right to free speech.
144. Defendants’ actions deprived NLCM and the members of its congregation of their
right to expressive assembly by using their discretion to oppose NLCM’s religious assembly at
the Property and deny NLCM the right to assemble for expressive worship at the Property.
145. Defendants’ demand that NLCM obtain a CUP prior to engaging in religious
assembly and worship at the Property serves as an unconstitutional prior restraint on free
exercise and speech.
146. Defendants’ actions were content-based speech restrictions in that they did not
permit NLCM to assemble for worship due to the religious nature of its assembly and message.
147. Defendants’ actions in opposing and deny NLCM the right to assemble for
worship at the Property do not serve a compelling governmental interest, nor are they narrowly
tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
31
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF IDAHO’S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT
reference.
149. Chapter 4, Title 73 of the Idaho Code is not expressly titled the “Idaho Religious
Freedom Restoration Act” or “IRFRA” for short. However, the Idaho State Legislature refers to
this chapter as Idaho’s “own RFRA” in Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Purpose (RS 09829C1)
attached to Senate Bill No. 1394, Legislature of the State of Idaho, Fifty-fifth Legislature,
Second Regular Session (2000). The Act provides that:
***
(1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even
if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not
substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule
of general applicability.
(3) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it

demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental

interest.
(4) A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may
assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate
relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter
against a government shall recover attorney's fees and costs.
32
150. Mountain Home’s Code and Defendants’ actions constitute a substantial burden
on the Church and its members’ exercise of religion in violation of Idaho Code § 73-402 (2011).
the Prayer For Relief below.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF IDAHO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE
reference.
152. Mountain Home’s Code and Defendants’ actions violated the Church and its
members’ exercise of religion in violation of Article I, § 4 of the Idaho Constitution which
protects their right to exercise and enjoy their religious faith and worship and to not be denied
any civil or political right on account of their religious nature.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF IDAHO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
reference.
members’ freedom of speech in violation of Article I, § 9 of the Idaho Constitution which
protects their right to free speech
33
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF IDAHO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE ASSEMBLY
reference.
members’ freedom of assembly in violation of Article I, § 10 of the Idaho Constitution which
protects their right to assemble.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Church respectfully prays that the Court:
A. Enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring that Mountain Home’s requirement that
churches obtain a conditional use permit to locate in its C-3 districts, is void and unconstitutional
both on its face and as applied to the No Limits Christian Ministries;
B Enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring that by force of federal law, Churches are
entitled to equal treatment as a permitted use in C-3 districts generally and at 535 N. Main St.,
Mountain Hope, Idaho specifically;
C. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the City to immediately
permit No Limits Christian Ministries to use the property at 535 N. Main St., Mountain Home,
Idaho as a church for religious assembly free from any restrictions of the Mountain Home
Zoning Code subject only to neutral health and safety laws;
D. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the City, its officers,
agents, employees, attorneys and all other persons acting in active concert with it, from enforcing
34
its Zoning Code to prevent or attempt to prevent the Church from using the property at 535 N.
Main St., Mountain Home, Idaho as a church for religious assembly;
E. Award compensatory damages in favor of No Limits Christian Ministries and the
individual members of the congregation against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all
damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s illegal code and Defendant’s actions which violated
clearly established law, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon;
F. Award compensatory damages in favor of No Limits Christian Ministries and the
individual members of the congregation against all defendants, jointly and severally, for the
burdens suffered as a result of the delay in not being able to use the property at 535 N. Main St.,
Mountain Home, Idaho for church purposes;
G. Award damages in favor of No Limits Christian Ministries and the individual
members of the congregation against all defendants, jointly and severally, for the violations of
the constitutional liberties No Limits Christian Ministries and the individual members of the
congregation;
H. Award the No Limits Christian Ministries its costs and expenses of this action,
including reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable law;
I. Award punitive damages against the Individual Defendants and John/Jane Does 1-
10 jointly and severally in the amount of $10,000.00;
J. Retain jurisdiction of this matter as necessary to enforce the Court’s orders; and
K. Grant such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
///
///
35
Respectfully submitted this 31st day of May, 2011.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
/s/ Gary G. Allen
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

Gary G. Allen, Esq.
GaryAllen@givenspursley.com
ID Bar No. 4366
601 W. Bannock
Boise, Idaho 83702
T: 208-388-1200
F: 208-388-1300
/s/ John W. Mauck
MAUCK & BAKER, LLC

John W. Mauck, Esq.*
jmauck@mauckbaker.com
IL Bar NO. 1797328
Chicago, IL 60602
T: 312-726-1243
F: 312 726-1039
/s/ Noel W. Sterett
Noel W. Sterett, Esq.*

nsterett@mauckbaker.com
IL Bar NO. 6292008
Chicago, IL 60602
T: 312-726-1243
F: 312 726-1039
*Petition For Admission Pro Hac Vice submitted concurrently.
36
Case 1:11-cv-00255-EJL Document 1-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 13
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
Case 1:11-cv-00255-EJL Document 1-6 EXHIBIT F
Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
Case 1:11-cv-00255-EJL Document 1-12 FiledEXHIBIT
05/31/11 LPage 1 of 1
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT N
EXHIBIT O

Federal Court Documents: Church Sues Mountain Home, ID For Violation of Religious Rights

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Federal Court Documents: Church Sues Mountain Home, ID For Violation of Religious Rights

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:11-cv-00255-EJL Document 1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 36

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP

MAUCK & BAKER, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NO LIMITS CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES, Inc.,)

hereby alleges the following:

BACKGROUND AND PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, No Limits Christian Ministries (may be referred to hereafter as “NLCM”

Freedom Act, Idaho Code § 73-402, and the Idaho Constitution.

Williams, Sr. (“Williams Dec.”) ¶¶ 1-3.

Chapter 4, 9-4-4: Land Use Chart attached as Exhibit B.

6. NLCM, now a congregation of about 60-70 people, is predominantly African-

United States Air Force base located there. Id. at ¶ 7.

in the following ways (Id. at ¶ 8):

i. NLCM is only able to use the space on Tuesdays and Sundays;

ii. Sunday services are from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.;

iii. Seating capacity is limited to 60 people;

in its own space at 535 N. Main St.;

musical performances, outreach functions, and social gatherings of the

weddings, baptisms, and memorial services;

and children’s ministry services during worship because it is a temporary

location and not designed to accommodate such services. As a result,

worship service or be ministered to or have their children given the level

of teaching and support in a child-friendly atmosphere NLCM feels called

to provide. At Odd Fellow’s Hall, the children must be in the church

service along with the adults, resulting in numerous interruptions and

possible new members because of NLCM’s inability to provide such

childcare at Odd Fellow’s Hall;

ix. NLCM is unable to use expressions of faith through decoration because it

cannot affix items on the walls at Odd Fellow’s Hall;

x. NLCM cannot grow;

xi. NLCM cannot provide regular counsel at this building;

one of the members;

xiii. The building leaks when it rains or snows;

the corner takes the little parking that is available; and

with different spiritual groups and fraternities (Mason's, Odd Fellow’s,

wears on the members and causes damage to equipment.

8. NLCM is registered as a not-for-profit organization under the laws of Idaho which

operates as a church, and is tax-exempt pursuant to IRS Code §501(c)(3). Id. at ¶ 9.

property owners for parking.

13. Defendants ANDERSON, SCHROEDER, ISAAC, and HARPER, along with

and not the facial challenges to the Code.

14. Defendants ANDERSON, SCHROEDER, ISAAC, and HARPER, along with

15. Defendants ANDERSON, SCHROEDER, ISAAC, and HARPER, along with

established federal rights for the following reasons:

i. Generally, they are presumed to know the law as City Officials;

their oversight and application of Mountain Home’s zoning;

iii. The Supreme Court precedents of City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living

U.S. 61 (1981) were established over 25 years ago;

iv. RLUIPA was passed over ten years ago in 2000.

FURTHER ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

i. weekly assembly of the congregation to worship (Hebrews 10:25);

ii. weekly preaching, including speech relating to personal morality, God,

social, and cultural issues (2 Timothy 4:2);

iii. pastoral counseling for the disturbed, lonely and bereaved;

iv. prayer meetings (Acts 1:13-14);

v. singing and musical performances (Psalms 81:1-2);

vi. baptisms, weddings, funerals, and communion (Matthew 28:19; Luke

vii. Bible studies;

viii. nurseries or Sunday school for infants and toddlers;

ix. youth activities, including games and sports;