## Facts

- A Muslim nonprofit purchased a commercial building in Troy, Michigan intending to use it for religious worship and related community uses.
- At purchase, the property was located in a general business district where places of worship were permitted as of right.
- The city later amended its zoning ordinance to impose special setback, parking, and landscaping requirements on “places of worship,” including a 50-foot side setback and restrictions on parking in setback areas facing residential zones.
- The center alleged these requirements made the property feasible for commercial uses but not feasible for use as a mosque.
- The center sought variances from the setback and parking provisions from the city’s zoning board of appeals; after a public hearing, the board unanimously denied the request.
- The center alleged the city had not approved a Muslim place of worship and that other religious institutions had received approvals.
- The center claimed the ordinance and variance denial forced congregants to worship outside the city and substantially burdened religious exercise.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under RLUIPA based on the ordinance amendments and variance denial.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged unequal treatment under RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision and unconstitutional discrimination under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
3. Whether official-capacity claims against individual zoning board members were duplicative of claims against the municipality.
4. Whether legislative, qualified, or quasi-judicial immunity warranted dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- The court dismissed claims against individual zoning board members in their official capacities as redundant because the city was already a defendant.
- The court denied dismissal of the center’s core federal claims under RLUIPA and § 1983, holding the complaint plausibly alleged a substantial burden and discriminatory treatment.
- The court declined to resolve asserted immunity defenses at the pleading stage and allowed the federal claims to proceed for factual development.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- RLUIPA’s substantial-burden provision can be plausibly alleged where land-use rules and individualized decisions effectively exclude or seriously restrict a religious institution’s ability to operate within a jurisdiction.
- RLUIPA’s equal-terms provision prohibits treating religious assemblies less favorably than comparable nonreligious assemblies through land-use regulations.
- Official-capacity claims against municipal officers generally operate as claims against the municipality and may be dismissed as duplicative when the municipality is named.
- Immunity defenses (legislative, quasi-judicial, or qualified) may require a developed record when the challenged conduct may include both legislative actions (ordinance-making) and individualized administrative decisions (permit/variance decisions).

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case by dismissing redundant official-capacity claims against individual zoning board members, but held that allegations that the city’s amended zoning requirements and variance denial effectively prevented establishment of a mosque plausibly stated RLUIPA and constitutional claims and could not be dismissed or barred by immunity defenses at the pleading stage.


Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy, No. 18-13481, 2019 WL 1470655 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2019)