IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH )
CENTER, and WORLDWIDE AGAPE )
MINISTRIES, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.
)
)
Defendant. )
VERIFIED
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COME
I.
introduction
1.
2.
Plaintiff
WorldWide Agape Ministries (“WW Minstries”) is a small church that currently
meets in a home. WW Ministries has been
informed by the County that is must cease and desist holding worship services
in a home, even for only 2-3 persons.
Consequently, WW Ministries wants to find another location within the
County to meet. However, because of its
small size, it cannot afford to purchase or lease enough land to satisfy the
2.5 acre minimum requirement for churches in the County. In addition, the churches are unreasonably
excluded from several zoning districts within the County, further burdening WW
Ministries’ efforts to find a new location.
3.
Plaintiffs
are challenging the Miami Dade County Zoning Code (“Code”) in that it violates
Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution; the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §2000cc-1, et seq.; and
4.
To
redress irreparable harm to their rights, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief for violation of their constitutional and statutory rights,
and seek compensatory and nominal damages to redress past legal injuries.
II. JURISDICTION
5.
This
action arises under the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 RLUIPA,
42 U.S.C. §2000cc-1, et seq.; and
6.
This
Court is vested with original jurisdiction over the federal claims by operation
of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367, and has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear claims arising under
7.
This
Court is vested with authority to grant the requested declaratory judgment by
operation of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, et seq.
8.
This
Court is authorized to issue the requested injunctive relief pursuant to Rule
65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9.
This
Court is authorized to award attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
Fla. Stat. § 761.03, et seq.
10.
Venue
is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that all plaintiffs reside in the
district, the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the district,
and the subject properties are located in the district.
10.
Plaintiff IOC is a nonprofit organization under the
laws of
11.
Plaintiff WW Ministries is a nonprofit organization
under the laws of
12.
IV. STATEMENT
OF FACTS
13.
IOC leases five units in a building located within the
County, addresses of 12807, 1209, 12811, 12813, and 12815
14. IOC has used its property for church offices and worship services since 1994.
15. A unit adjacent to the IOC Property has been used as a dance studio, open to the public, since before IOC began leasing the space.
16. The IOC Property is zoned as Industrial Use Conditional.
17. Currently, about 70 people attend the worship services at the IOC property.
18.
On
19.
On
20. The County responded to IOC’s application by providing a list of items needing IOC’s compliance. One of these items is that the IOC property needs to be located on 2.5 acres.
21. The Code requires all churches in the County to be located on a minimum of 2.5 acres.
22. Code § 33-18(d) states, “No church shall be constructed, operated or permitted upon any site that does not contain a minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) acres of land area, including street dedications, and having a minimum contiguous frontage of at least one hundred fifty (150) feet abutting on a public street right-of-way. Off-street parking facilities shall be provided and maintained within the land area of every church site in conformity with the requirements of Sections 33-122 through 33-132.”
23. While all of the other items can be addressed by IOC, it is unable to meet the 2.5 acre requirement.
24. Other assembly uses within the Industrial Use Conditional District are not subjected to a minimum acreage requirement.
25. Other assembly uses within the County’s jurisdiction are not subjected to a minimum acreage requirement.
26. The County’s minimum acreage requirement for churches applies throughout the County.
27. WW Ministries is a small ministry of about 10 persons who meet regularly to pray, read and discuss the Bible, and sing religious songs.
28. WW Ministries meet at a home within the County.
29.
On
30. The Order commands Plaintiffs to “cease and desist church services at this location – this is an unauthorized use in a RU-1 District.”
31. The Order prohibits Plaintiffs from having others over to their home for communal prayer, Bible reading, singing religious songs, and discussion of biblical passages.
32. WW Ministries were informed by Miami-Dade County Zoning Compliance Officer R. Brunetto that if they could not even have 2-3 people come over to their house for prayer.
33. Officer Brunetto warned the Plaintiffs that if they continued to have others come to their house for prayer, they would be fined and possibly, a lien could be placed on their house.
34. Consequently, WW Ministries is looking for another place to hold their worship services.
35. However, WW Ministries is unable to find a location within the County due to the unreasonable restrictions placed on churches within the County.
36. For example, as stated above, every church must be located on 2.5 acres.
37. This is cost prohibitive to a church the size of WW Ministries.
38. In addition, churches are not allowed as of right in the following districts: RU-1, RU-1Z, RU-1M(a), RU-1M(b), RU-2, RU-TH, RU-5, RU-5A, EU-M, EU-S, EU-1, EU-1C, EU-2, IU-1, IU-2, IU-3, IU-C.
39. Yet, other public assembly uses are allowed as a matter of right those same districts.
40. For example, although auditoriums and private clubs are permitted as a matter of right in the IU-1 District, churches are not.
41. Defendant’s Code unequally treats churches within the County with other public assembly uses.
V. ALLEGATIONS
OF LAW
42. All acts of the Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, or persons acting at its behest or direction, were done and are continuing to be done under the color and pretense of state law, including the ordinances, regulations, customs, policies and usages of the County.
43. The violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights alleged herein have caused, and will continue to cause, Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury and damage.
44. Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivations their constitutional and civil rights.
45.
Unless and until
46. The Defendant will suffer no harm if the injunctive relief is granted to Plaintiff.
47. The harm to Plaintiff outweighs any harm to the Defendant.
48. The public interest is benefited when constitutional and civil rights are protected by the courts.
COUNT 1 - VIOLATION OF
49. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
50. Code § 33-18(d) targets religious speech.
51. Code § 33-18(d) prohibits religious speech on property that is less than 2.5 acres.
52. Code § 33-18(d) restricts speech based on its religious viewpoint.
53. Code § 33-18(d) restricts speech based on its religious content.
54. Code § 33-18(d) is underinclusive as it does not regulate similar speech which does not incorporate religious activities.
55. Code § 33-18(d) is overbroad because it sweeps within its ambit protected First Amendment speech.
56. Code § 33-18(d) operates as a prior restraint on speech because persons must obtain permission before engaging in religious speech on property less than 2.5 acres.
57. Code § 33-18(d) does not leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
58. Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights have been chilled by Code § 33-18(d).
59. The County does not have a compelling interest for Code § 33-18(d).
60. Code § 33-18(d) is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.
61. Code § 33-18(d) is not the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest.
62. Code § 33-18(d) thus constitutes a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
WHEREFORE,
Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant the equitable and legal
relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 2 -
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
63. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
64. Plaintiffs want to peaceably assemble with other persons on their property for the purpose of praying, reading and discussing the Bible, and singing religious songs.
65. Code § 33-18(d) prohibits Plaintiffs from peaceably assembling with others on their property for prayer, reading and discussing the Bible, and singing religious songs.
66. The County does not have a compelling interest to prohibit Plaintiffs from peaceably assembling with others on their property for prayer, Bible reading and discussion, and singing religious songs.
67. Code § 33-18(d) is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling interest.
68. Code § 33-18(d) is not the least restrictive means of achieving any compelling interest.
69.
Code § 33-18(d) is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to
peaceably assemble under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 3 -
VIOLATION OF THE
70. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
71. Plaintiffs believe that they must regularly associate with others on their property to express their devotion to God through communal prayer, Bible reading and discussion and singing religious songs.
72. Communal prayer, Bible reading and discussion, and singing religious songs is central to the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ Christian faith.
73. Code § 33-18(d) prohibits the Plaintiffs from holding church services on their property.
74. Code § 33-18(d) prohibits the Plaintiffs from praying, reading and discussing the Bible and singing religious songs with others on their property.
75. Code § 33-18(d) prohibits the exercise of First Amendment rights associated with communal prayer, including but not limited to, the rights of free speech, privacy, and peaceable assembly.
76. Code § 33-18(d) imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s religious beliefs and exercise.
77. The Order targets religious speech
78. Code § 33-18(d) is not neutral or generally applicable.
79. Defendant’s Code permits them to make individualized assessments of the proposed uses of property within the County.
80. The County does not have a compelling interest to prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their religious beliefs by engaging in prayer, Bible reading and discussion and singing religious songs with others on their property.
81. Code § 33-18(d) is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling interest.
82. Code § 33-18(d) is not the least restrictive means of achieving any compelling interest.
83. Code § 33-18(d) is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 4 -
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
84. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
85. Plaintiffs believe that they must regularly associate with others on their property to express their devotion to God through communal prayer, Bible reading and discussion and singing religious songs.
86. Communal prayer, Bible reading and discussion and singing religious songs is central to the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ Christian faith.
87. The County has determined that communal Bible reading and discussion, singing, and praying amount to a church service, which is prohibited by the Zoning Code on less than 2.5 acres.
88. The term “church service” is not defined in the Order.
89. The term “church service” is not defined in the Zoning Code.
90. The term “church service” is unconstitutionally vague.
91. Defendant’s Code allows for unfettered discretion for County Zone Officials to suppress religious gatherings as it does not define “church services.”
92. Defendant’s Code is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 5 -
VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
93. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
94. Plaintiffs believe that they must regularly associate with others on their property to express their devotion to God through communal prayer, Bible reading, singing religious songs, and sharing biblical insight.
95. Communal prayer, Bible reading, singing religious songs, and sharing biblical insight is central to the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ Christian faith.
96. Code § 33-18(d) treats religious gatherings on less than equal terms with other similarly situated non-religious gatherings.
97. The County has no compelling interest for Code § 33-18(d).
98. Code § 33-18(d) is not narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling interest, nor is it the least restrictive means of achieving any compelling interest.
99. Code § 33-18(d) is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 6 -
VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
100. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
101. Code § 33-18(d) prohibits church services on less than 2.5 acres.
102. Code § 33-18(d) is hostile to religion.
103. The County does not have a valid secular purpose to prohibit religious gatherings on less than 2.5 acres.
104. Code § 33-18(d) is not neutral to religion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 7 – VIOLATION OF
RLUIPA
105. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
106. Defendant’s Code and the Order violate Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion as guaranteed by RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc, et seq.
107. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are sincerely and deeply held.
108. Code § 33-18(d) imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
109. Code § 33-18(d) is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental purpose.
110. Code § 33-18(d) is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest.
111. Upon information and belief, Defendant receives federal financial assistance.
112. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Code and actions affect commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with Indian tribes.
113. Defendant’s Code permits them to make individualized assessments of the proposed uses of property within the County, including Plaintiffs’ property.
114. Defendant’s Code treats Plaintiffs on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies.
115. Defendants’ Code discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of religion.
116. Defendant’s Code totally excludes religious gatherings from a zoning jurisdiction.
117. Defendant’s Code unreasonably limits Plaintiffs’ religious gatherings within the zoning jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
COUNT 8 – VIOLATION OF THE
118. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth above.
119. Code § 33-18(d) violates Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Florida RFRA, (Fla. Stat. § 761.01)
120. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are sincerely and deeply held.
121. Code § 33-18(d) imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
122. Code § 33-18(d) is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental purpose.
123. Code § 33-18(d) is not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interest.
124. Code § 33-18(d) is not a narrowly tailored restriction on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the
equitable and legal relief set forth hereinafter in the prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs pray for judgment as
follows:
a. That this Court preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the conduct of Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, and employees
which violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution, RLUIPA, and the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
b. That this Court preliminary and
permanently enjoin the Defendant from enforcing Code § 33-18(d);
c. That this Court render a Declaratory
Judgment declaring Code § 33-18(d) to be invalid and unconstitutional under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, RLUIPA, and
the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
d. Grant to Plaintiffs compensatory and
nominal damages;
e. Grant to Plaintiffs an award of their
costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
f. Grant such other and further relief as
this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully
submitted this ___ day of February, 2007.
_____________________
Florida
Bar # 659746 Arizona Bar # 009940
15192
Rosewood 15333 E. Pima Rd., Ste. 165
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS