UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILLIAM BRIAN JONES,
Plaintiff
vs.
THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE,
Defendant
Case No. ______________
Honorable: _____________
COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
1. COMES NOW Plaintiff WILLIAM BRIAN JONES, with this complaint
against the Defendant, THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks
equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief, along with monetary damages from The City of
Baton Rouge for abrogating Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights through the Defendant’s
violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5, and First Amendment Rights. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
violated RLUIPA by prohibiting Plaintiff from putting signage outside his business.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, WILLIAM BRIAN JONES is a resident and domiciliary of The City
of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and is a citizen of the United States
of America and the State of Louisiana. His address is 2563 Lydia Avenue, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 70808.
3. Defendant, THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON
ROUGE is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Louisiana. For purposes of
this complaint, references to the City include both the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of
2
East Baton Rouge, as appropriate. The City may be served through its agent
________________.
JURISDICITON AND VENUE
4. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202. This action is also brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 alleging violation of Plaintiff’s civil right(s) under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5.
5. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, including, but not limited to, claims asserted
pursuant to Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the Louisiana Constitution.
6. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Plaintiff and/or
Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. Plaintiff and/or Defendant lives
within the jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, a substantial part of the acts and omissions
forming the basis of these claims occurred in the Middle District of Louisiana and arose from
the actions or inactions of the Defendant.
FACTS
7. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
8. Plaintiff is a Minister serving at the Christian Global Outreach Ministries
(Minister #41598).
9. Plaintiff is also the owner of Providus Counsel Institute, which is situate at
2563 Lydia Avenue, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70808, which is further described as follows:
CPPC Lot ID#: 930361192, Lot 7, Block 1, Tract Name: Zeeland Place.
10. Initially, the property existed as an investment property, commercial office
(A.1). However, on or about May 16, 2022, Plaintiff made an application to have the property
rezoned to a commercial office, religious institution (C.1) (Exhibit 1- Rezoning). It is worth
3
noting that the property owner signed the application together with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff
paid the requisite fees.
11. Plaintiff also made a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment application
on May 31, 2022, seeking to have the property converted from a Residential Neighborhood to
Neighborhood Centre (Exhibit 2- Comprehensive Plan Amendment). Here, it is also
important to further note that the property owner signed the application together with
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff paid the requisite fees.
12. Plaintiff then put-up signage outside the said business premises.
13. The foregoing notwithstanding, Defendant sent Plaintiff a notice of violation
of the City’s regulations.
14. Plaintiff therefore files this action to seek relief for the City’s conduct.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1
Violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights
15. The preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.
16. The First Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides that “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
17. The U.S. Supreme Court in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015),
unanimously invalidated an ordinance that treated signs differently based on their content. In
Reed, the Supreme Court held that a law or a regulation that is content-based on its face is
subject to strict scrutiny regardless of benign motive. The Court went further to state that
even if it does not single out any viewpoint for oppression, a law that precludes public
4
discussion on an entire topic is content-based on its face and is subject to strict scrutiny under
the First Amendment.
18. The City’s Sign Code targets Plaintiff’s faith-based business. Plaintiff asserts
that the Code imposes content-based restrictions on the contents of Plaintiff’s signpost(s),
which provisions can stand only if they survive strict scrutiny, “‘[requiring] the Government
to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve
that interest,’” Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U. S. 721
(2011).
19. It is also Plaintiff’s contention that the City has not provided sufficient
justification for limiting signs outside Plaintiff’s business. The City cannot claim that the
Sign Code furthers a legitimate government interest, since the Code curtails Plaintiff’s rights
under the First Amendment, hence damaging Plaintiff’s business. Indeed, the Supreme Court
further noted in this regard that: “a “‘law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the
highest order, and thus as justifying a restriction on truthful speech, when it leaves
appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited,’” Republican Party of
Minn. v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 780 (2002).
20. Plaintiff therefore prays for It follows; as the Sign Code violates provisions the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq,
and as federal law is the supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief in
the form of an Order declaring the ordinance to be unconstitutional and in violation of the
citizens of Baton Rouge’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
21. As the Sign Code violates provisions the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States, and as federal law is the supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to a
5
permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the City or its actors from enforcing the ordinance’s
provisions.
22. As Plaintiff has been deprived of his rights under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and as he continues to suffer damages as a result of Defendants’
unconstitutional acts, he is entitled to money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
23. As the Sign Code violates provisions the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States, and as federal law is the supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to
declaratory relief in the form of an Order declaring the ordinance to be unconstitutional and
in violation of the citizens of Baton Rouge’s rights under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
COUNT 2
Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq
24. The preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.
25. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq protects individuals and religious assemblies and
institutions from discriminatory and unduly burdensome land use regulations.
26. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a), RLUIPA protects against substantial burdens on
religious exercise. Further, the Department of Justice interprets a substantial burden on
religious exercise to constitute imposing a significantly great restriction on religious use of a
property (Exhibit 3- Statement of the Department of Justice on the Land Use Provisions
of RLUIPA). Plaintiff asserts that the City’s Sign Code casts undue burden on Plaintiff’s
business, since it limits Plaintiff’s ability to put up signs based on the nature of Plaintiff’s
faith-based business.
27. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1), RLUIPA protects against unequal treatment
of religious assemblies and institutions (Exhibit 3- Statement of the Department of Justice
6
on the Land Use Provisions of RLUIPA). Plaintiff asserts that the limitation on Plaintiff’s
land use is not placed on other non-faith-based institutions. Notably, RLUIPA defines land
use regulation as a “zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or
restricts a claimant’s use or development of land.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5). RLUIPA
further identifies Zoning laws to include statutes, ordinances, or codes that determine what
type of building or land use can be located in what areas and under what conditions.
28. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B), RLUIPA protects against unreasonable
limitations of religious assemblies (Exhibit 3- Statement of the Department of Justice on
the Land Use Provisions of RLUIPA). It is Plaintiff’s averment that the City has not
provided sufficient justification for limiting signs outside Plaintiff’s business. The City
cannot claim that the Sign Code furthers a legitimate government interest, since the Code
curtails Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment, hence damaging Plaintiff’s business.
29. As the Sign Code violates provisions the 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as
federal law is the supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunctive relief
prohibiting the City or its actors from enforcing the ordinance’s provisions.
30. As Plaintiff has been deprived of his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq,
and as he continues to suffer damages as a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, he is
entitled to money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
31. As the Sign Code violates provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as
federal law is the supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief in the form
of an Order declaring the ordinance to be unconstitutional and in violation of the citizens of
Baton Rouge’s rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.
COUNT 3
Violation of Plaintiff’s rights under color of law
(42 U.S.C. 1983 [1 ST Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq])
7
32. The preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.
33. At all times pertinent hereto, the City acted under color of law pursuant to
statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices, and usage of the State of
Louisiana and/or the City of Baton Rouge
34. The City was also charged at all relevant times with the knowledge of the law
as it existed with respect to Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitutions and laws of the United
States and Louisiana.
35. It follows; as the Sign Code violates provisions the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as federal law is the
supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief in the form of an Order
declaring the ordinance to be unconstitutional and in violation of the citizens of Baton
Rouge’s rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
36. As the Sign Code violates provisions the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as federal law is the supreme law of
the land, Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the City or its actors
from enforcing the ordinance’s provisions.
37. As Plaintiff has been deprived of his rights under the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as he continues to suffer
damages as a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, he is entitled to money damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
COUNT 4
Declaratory Judgment
38. The preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.
8
39. There now exists, between the parties hereto, a dispute and controversy to
which the Plaintiff and the Defendant are entitled to have a declaration of their rights and
further relief relating to the facts and circumstances as set forth in this action.
40. The dispute is whether the Defendant is liable for violating Plaintiff’s rights
under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.
41. Plaintiff respectfully request this Honorable Court issue a declaratory
judgment declaring that the actions and/or inactions of the Defendant’s actions and/or
inactions are blameworthy, and issue appropriate remedies thereof.
COUNT 5
42 U.S.C. §1983 (14th Amendment – Equal Protection)
42. The preceding paragraphs are fully incorporated herein.
43. The City of Baton Rouge, through its enactment of the Sign Code, has
infringed upon Plaintiff’s and other citizens’ right to equal protection of the laws, guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
44. It follows; as the Sign Code violates provisions the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as federal law is the
supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief in the form of an Order
declaring the ordinance to be unconstitutional and in violation of the citizens of Baton
Rouge’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
45. As the Sign Code violates provisions the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as federal law is the
supreme law of the land, Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the
City or its actors from enforcing the ordinance’s provisions.
46. As Plaintiff has been deprived of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq, and as he continues to
9
suffer damages as a result of Defendants’ unconstitutional acts, he is entitled to money
damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
COUNT 6
Louisiana Constitution, Article I, § 2 and § 3
47. The City of Baton Rouge, through its enactment of the Sign Code has
infringed upon Plaintiff’s and other citizens’ right against deprivation of liberty or property
without due process of law pursuant to Article I, Section 2; and the right to equal protection
of the laws, guaranteed by Article I, Section 3, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974.
48. As the Sign Code violates provisions of the Louisiana Constitution of the
United States, Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief in the form of an Order declaring the
ordinance to be unconstitutional and in violation of the citizens of Baton Rouge’s rights under
Louisiana law.
49. As the Sign Code violates provisions of the Louisiana Constitution, Plaintiff is
entitled to permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the City or its actors from enforcing the
ordinance’s provisions.
50. As Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right against deprivation of liberty or
property without due process of law, guaranteed to him under Article 1, §2 of the Louisiana
Constitution, and Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by Article I,
Section 3, of the Louisiana Constitution, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief in the form of
an Order directing the City and its actors stop enforcing the Code.
51. The deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Louisiana Constitution also
entitles him to money damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and he
hereby prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants as follows:
i. Declaratory relief;
ii. Actual damages for the blameworthy conduct of the Defendant as alleged herein to
the maximum extent permitted under the law;
iii. Injunctive relief;
iv. Interest as provided by law;
v. An award of fees and costs;
vi. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: __________
______________________________
WILLIAM BRIAN JONES
Pro se
11
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, WILLIAM BRIAN JONES, hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the
foregoing Complaint have been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
RESIDENT AGENT FOR SERVICE OF SUMMONS:
[ADDRESS]
______________________________
WILLIAM BRIAN JONES
Pro se
12
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )