Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-2358
ANDON,
LLC;
RECONCILING
MINISTRIES, LLC,
PEOPLE
TOGETHER
IN
FAITH
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00076-RGD-LRL)
Argued:
December 9, 2015
Decided:
February 9, 2016
this
in
appeal,
we
dismissing
with
consider
whether
prejudice
the
district
complaint
filed
court
by
two
The
Institutionalized
Persons
Act
(RLUIPA,
or
the
Act),
42
claim
that
the
BZAs
decision
imposed
substantial
We also
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying
the
plaintiffs
request
to
amend
their
complaint,
We therefore
I.
In 2012, Walter T. Terry, Jr. formed a congregation for
religious worship known as Reconciling People Together in Faith
Ministries, LLC (the congregation) in Newport News, and served
2
as
its
initially
pastor.
Although
gathered
to
the
worship
members
in
of
local
the
congregation
business
owned
by
The
the
the
property
property
complied
did
not
with
satisfy
three
the
of
these
setback
Despite
knowledge
entered
into
written
of
lease
this
problem,
agreement
the
with
congregation
Andon
that
was
reviewing
Andons
application,
the
City
Codes
and
that the BZA, prior to issuing a variance, must first find that:
(1) strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue
hardship
other
relating
properties;
substantial
to
the
(2)
detriment
to
property
such
not
variance
adjacent
shared
generally
will
property;
not
and
be
(3)
by
of
the
on
restrictions,
the
Compliance
Department
recommended that the BZA deny the variance, because the property
could be used for other purposes without a variance, and because
holding
Compliance
public
Departments
variance request.
Virginia
state
hearing,
recommendation
the
and
BZA
voted
adopted
the
to
the
deny
court,
which
upheld
the
BZAs
determination.
The plaintiffs filed the present suit in federal district
court alleging that the BZAs denial of their variance request
imposed
substantial
burden
on
the
plaintiffs
religious
burden
action
location
and
claim).
The
plaintiffs
delay
in
obtaining
uncertainty
as
caused
to
alleged
a
that
viable
whether
the
worship
the
plaintiffs
attached
to
their
complaint
an
affidavit
from Terry, who stated that he could not find a[n alternate
property] that was the appropriate size, location, and price to
serve as a place of worship for the congregation.
stated
in
buildings
the
were
affidavit
that
too
and
large
[m]any
too
congregation.
of
expensive
the
for
He also
[alternative]
[the]
young
The
City
moved
to
dismiss
the
complaint
with
prejudice
II.
We
review
complaint
under
de
novo
Rule
the
district
12(b)(6)
for
courts
failure
to
dismissal
state
of
claim.
When
Bass v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 764 (4th Cir. 2003).
The
plaintiffs
dismissing
their
argue
complaint
that
of
the
district
RLUIPA
court
violation,
erred
in
contending
on
their
religious
exercise.
Citing
our
decision
in
The
discretion
complaint.
refusing
their
request
to
amend
their
RLUIPA
regulation
in
contains
of
land
two
use
provisions
with
respect
limiting
to
governmental
religious
exercise. 3
on
less
than
equal
terms
with
nonreligious
second
regulation
of
RLUIPA
land
provision
use,
on
which
addressing
the
plaintiffs
governmental
base
their
Instead,
this
provision
prohibits
governmental
entity
from
imposing or implementing 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.
42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1).
To
state
substantial
burden
claim
under
RLUIPA,
regulation
regarding
land
use,
or
application
of
such
plaintiff
had
purchased
property
for
the
then-permitted
The
banned
first
regulation
at
issue
in
Bethel
extension
of
Id. at 553.
In
Id.
adopted
property,
second
which
regulation
applicable
prohibited
the
to
the
construction
plaintiffs
of
private
Id.
target
secular
religious
and
religious
nevertheless
presented
exercise
uses,
a
and
we
applied
concluded
triable
RLUIPA
generally
that
the
claim,
to
both
plaintiff
because
the
to
abandon
Id. at 556-59.
its
pre-existing
plan
to
construct
reaching
function
this
of
conclusion,
RLUIPAs
protect
property
for
we
emphasized
substantial
plaintiffs
religious
reasonable
purposes.
burden
Id. at 557-58.
that
critical
restriction
expectation
Id.
at
is
to
to
use
real
556-57;
see
Petra
Cir.
2007)
(explaining
that
when
an
organization
buys
circumstances
of
the
present
case
are
materially
as
church.
When
the
plaintiffs
entered
into
the
setback
least 14 years.
requirements
for
that
type
of
use
for
at
would
not
setback requirement.
be
approved
for
failure
to
meet
the
result
by
including
the
contingency
provision
in
the
lease.
Bethel, the BZAs denial of the variance in the present case did
10
agreement
burdens
they
denying
the
Petra
for
sustained
variance,
Presbyterian
non-conforming
were
but
not
imposed
were
Church,
property,
by
the
self-imposed
489
F.3d
at
the
alleged
BZAs
action
hardships.
851
(because
See
the
site
will
for
not
its
church).
support
self-imposed
substantial
burden
hardship
claim
under
could
be
obtained
for
particular
land
use.
See
plaintiffs
have
not
satisfied
the
substantial
burden
See Bethel,
706 F.3d at 556; Guru Nanak Sikh Socy of Yuba City, 456 F.3d at
988-89; Civil Liberties for Urban Believers, 342 F.3d at 761.
Our conclusion is not altered by the plaintiffs further
contention that they have been unable to find another property
that
meets
the
congregations
budgetary limitations.
desired
location,
size,
and
urban
associated
land
with
use
location
represent
and
do
not
ordinary
support
difficulties
a
substantial
exemption
to
religious
organizations
from
generally
is
religious
seeking
uses
over
variance,
and
secular
uses.
impermissibly
See
Petra
would
favor
Presbyterian
We decline to
free
pass
for
religious
land
uses
masquerades
among
the
plain
result.
language
of
RLUIPA,
however,
prevents
such
that
Congress
did
not
intend
for
RLUIPA
to
F.3d
1010
standard of review).
(4th
Cir.
1996)
(stating
the
applicable
on
their
religious
exercise
was
self-imposed,
the
Thus,
we
agree
with
the
district
court
that
any
amendment
to
the
Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 121 (4th Cir. 2013) (Denying leave
to amend is appropriate when . . . the amendment would have been
futile.).
III.
For these reasons, we affirm the district courts judgment
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs complaint against the
City.
AFFIRMED
14