2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 1 of 21

Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

T.C. SPANN BIBLE INSTITUTE An Ecclesiastical Corporation 38788 Meadowlawn Wayne, MI 48184 Plaintiff,

: : :

Case No:_________________

Judge ___________________ :

v. : CITY OF INKSTER A Municipal Corporation 26215 Trowbridge Inkster, MI 48141 Defendant. : : : COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, by its attorney, makes the following general allegations which apply to each separate court of the Complaint: Jurisdiction And Venue 1. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly the First and

Fourteenth Amendments, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over these claims by operation of 28 U.S.C. Section

1331 and 1343 and U.S.C. Section 2000e(5).

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 2 of 21

Pg ID 2

3.

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) in that the events giving rise to the claim occurred within the district. Parties 4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a Michigan ecclesiastical

corporation whose members regularly assemble for religious worship and educational purposes. 5. Defendant is a Michigan municipal corporation. General Allegations 6. On or about March 1, 2000, Plaintiff acquired a 6.16 acre tract of land known as

2727 Inkster Road, Inkster, Michigan (the Property), wherein constituent components have use of a church and school of which the remains of the buildings were formerly owned by the Reverend J. Herbert Hinkle and used by the Cathedral of Faith, also formerly known as Second Baptist Church of Inkster, since 1973 until 1987 when the buildings were partially destroyed and damaged as a result of a fire. 7. On or about March 1, 2000, Plaintiff tendered a Memorandum of Land Contract

in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds for Wayne County. 8. When Plaintiff acquired the Property, it was zoned B-1 under which churches and

schools were permitted uses. 9. On or about July 25, 2000, Plaintiff and Reverend Hinkle (then Pastor of the

Cathedral of Faith) were granted a permit by the City of Inkster to perform all necessary repairs and construction on the damaged buildings (the Permit). 10. On or about January 5, 2001, Plaintiff and Reverend Hinkle took the Permit to the

City of Inkster Building Department and it was renewed for one year in each of 2002 and 2003.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 3 of 21

Pg ID 3

11.

On March 18, 2002, Plaintiff acquired fee simple title to the Property by way of a

Quit Claim Deed. 12. On or about December 3, 2001, the Inkster City Council adopted a Rezoning Plan

as part of Inkster Ordinance No. 792 creating the Town Center District (hereinafter referred to as the District). 13. Ordinance No. 792 rezoned the Property from a B-1 to a RM-1 excluding

churches and schools as permitted uses. 14. Plaintiff was not afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard despite its legal

ownership interest in the Property. 15. On or about July 27, 2004, while attempting to renew the Permit, Plaintiff was

informed for the first time that a stop order had been placed on the Permit on June 25, 2004 at the direction of Derek Hull, then Director of Planning and Economic Development for Defendant. 16. Plaintiff was further informed that in order to renew the Permit, Plaintiff would

have to make its request before the City Council. 17. On or about June 30, 2004, Plaintiff and its contractor attended a meeting of the

Inkster City Council to request renewal of the Permit. 18. 19. The City Council inquired as to why the Permit had not been renewed. Mr. Hull informed the City Council that he had been directed by the then Mayor

Pro Tem, Ernest Hendricks (Hendricks) to put the stop order on the Permit because Hendricks church, Cathedral of Faith, had paid the taxes on the Property. 20. Hendricks was then a deacon of Cathedral of Faith and presumably believed

(erroneously) that his church had an ownership interest in the Property.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 4 of 21

Pg ID 4

21.

Hendricks used his position on the City Council to thwart Plaintiffs efforts to

improve the Property. 22. Hendricks then explained to the City Council that his only concern was that Dr.

Spann, Plaintiffs CEO/President, show that he was authorized to be working on the Property by showing proof of some ownership interest to the Defendant. 23. Following the City Council meeting, Dr. Spann provided Mr. Hull and the City

Building Department with proof of Plaintiffs ownership interest in the Property. 24. Dr. Spann spoke with Mr. Hull again on August 10, 2004 regarding Plaintiffs

plan to rebuild the aforementioned property for a church and school. 25. Dr. Spann was informed then, for the first time, that the Citys zoning codes were

being revised and that the new code would not permit churches or parochial schools on the Property. 26. On or about September 17, 2004, while attempting to secure the building as

instructed by Defendants Planning Director, Dawn Walls, a code officer for the City of Inkster issued Dr. Spann a criminal citation for trespassing and violation of a city permit. 27. Hendricks. 28. On September 28, 2004, Dr. Spann again met with Dr. Hull concerning the Dr. Spann is informed and believes that Ms. Walls was acting at the behest of

increasing level of harassment and obstruction the Plaintiff was encountering from the City of Inkster. 29. Mr. Hull then informed Dr. Spann that the Permit would not renewed because it

had been determined by Defendant that the document presented showing ownership interest was determined to be invalid.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 5 of 21

Pg ID 5

30.

At the same time, Plaintiff was informed that, although the zoning regulations had

not yet been adopted, there would now be special conditions for churches in the District. 31. Shortly after this meeting, Mr. Hull resigned as Defendants Director of Planning

and Development. 32. Ms. Walls and other officers of the City of Inkster Police Department began

coming on to the Property and threatening to arrest or issue citations to contractors and construction workers hired by Plaintiff to secure the Property for the then upcoming winter. 33. Ms. Walls also used yellow tape to tape off access to the Property and informed

then counsel for Plaintiff that she had been instructed by an Evangelist Smith of Cathedral of Faith that it owned the Property and not the Plaintiff. 34. While Plaintiff was unable to access the Property, construction equipment and

other material located on the Property was stolen; including, but not limited to five steel doors; copper plumbing; asphalt roofing; cinder blocks; bricks and drywall. The Property was also subject to repeated vandalizing and illegal dumping. 35. Plaintiff made several attempts to file police reports regarding the thefts,

vandalizing and dumping with Defendants Police Department, but its officers repeatedly refused to either prepare a report or allow Plaintiff to submit a report on a police form. 36. Following Mr. Hulls departure, no one at the City would meet with the Plaintiff,

or assist it in obtaining the so called permits and variances then required. 37. On or about August 31, 2004, after discovering that the Defendant had not been

certified under the Amended School Buildings Act to issue or approve permits pertaining to school construction projects, Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the Property from the State of Michigan, Department of Labor & Economic Growth.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 6 of 21

Pg ID 6

38.

On or about December 29, 2004, then counsel for Plaintiff wrote counsel for

Defendant advising the City of the actions being taken against Plaintiff and requesting that they cease and desist. 39. Following the letter, counsel for the Plaintiff and Dr. Spann met with the City

Attorney and the City Manager in January 2005. 40. At that meeting, Plaintiff provided the City with copies of its recorded

Memorandum of Land Contract and Quit Claim Deed evidencing Plaintiffs ownership of the Property. 41. On or about September 8, 2005, the criminal trespassing and criminal permit

violation charges against Dr. Spann were dismissed. 42. On or about September 13, 2007, Plaintiff was approved by National City Bank

for a $550,000 commercial mortgage to renovate the Property for use as a parochial school and church. 43. On or about April 17, 2007, Plaintiff began receiving notices from the Defendant

purporting to condemn the Property for containing materials that were illegally dumped on the Property during the period Defendant denied Plaintiff access to the Property to maintain and secure it. 44. Plaintiff wrote several letters to the Defendant informing it that the Property had

not been abandoned and requesting permission, in writing, to remove any alleged refuse from the Property. 45. Defendant never responded to any of Plaintiffs letters or requests.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 7 of 21

Pg ID 7

46.

Plaintiff also made several requests under the Michigan Freedom of Information

Act for public information in the Defendants possession pertaining to Plaintiff and/or the Property. 47. Other than requesting and accepting payment of $50.00 allegedly to process the

FOIA request, Defendant never responded to the FOIA requests. 48. Having secured financing to begin construction of the church and parochial

school, Plaintiff retained a general contractor to begin work on the Property. 49. 50. However, the Defendant continued its efforts to thwart Plaintiffs objectives. In September 2007, Plaintiff was informed by the State of Michigan that

Plaintiffs State Building Permit had expired despite prior representations that said permit was in effect until 2020. 51. Plaintiff and its contractor then met with officials at the State of Michigan

Department of Labor & Economic Growth who advised Plaintiff that the Defendant had contacted the Department and informed it that the Property was being condemned. 52. Plaintiff was then advised that in order to renew its permit with the State of

Michigan he would now have to obtain several local permits from Wayne County and Defendant. 53. 54. Plaintiff was able to obtain all the permits needed from Wayne County. On or about October 16, 2007, Plaintiffs application for a permit was denied by

Defendant alleging that neither a church nor a parochial school was permitted in the District. 55. On June 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed an action with this court styled T.C. Spann Bible

Institute v. City of Inkster, Case No.C2-08-CV12368FSC, alleging, inter alia, that Defendant had

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 8 of 21

Pg ID 8

violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. (First Case). 56. The First Case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to a

settlement agreement between the parties (Settlement). 57. The Settlement acknowledged that a church or a parochial school may be

considered as a permitted use within the District. 58. The Settlement provided that Plaintiff would submit to Defendant its plans and

drawings for the construction of its church and parochial school in conformity with Defendants ordinances governing the District (Site Plans). 59. Defendant agreed that the Site Plans would then be considered in good faith in

accordance with the review process set forth in applicable ordinances of Defendant and Defendant further agreed in the Settlement that Defendants failure to act in good faith would permit Plaintiff to file its claims again in this Court. 60. On or about April 1, 2009, a meeting was held at Defendants offices among Dr.

Spann, Plaintiffs architect, Defendants attorney in the First Case, Defendants City Manager and Defendants Engineer, to further agree on the scope and contents of the Site Plans and the review process set forth in Defendants ordinances. 61. On March 16, 2010, Dr. Spann and Plaintiffs architect hand delivered two (2)

sets of the Site Plans to the attention of William Roberts, Defendants new Chief of Building and Structural Safety. 62. Dr. Spann later spoke to Mr. Roberts and he directed him to give a copy of the

Site Plans to Ms. Kim Faison in Defendants Building Planning Department.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 9 of 21

Pg ID 9

63.

On [April] 8, 2010, Dr. Spann hand delivered two (2) copies of the Site Plans to

Ms. Faisons office. 63. with him. 64. Dr. Spann then tried to make another appointment with Ms. Faison in two weeks Although Dr. Spann had an appointment with Ms. Faison, she refused to meet

to discuss the Site Plans. Ms. Faison refused to schedule another appointment stating that she did not have time to do so. 65. Given Ms. Faisons response, Dr. Spann then hand delivered two (2) copies of the

Site Plans to Ms. Ann Capela, the City Manager. 66. Defendant has refused to respond to the Site Plans as contemplated in the

Settlement and in Defendants ordinances. 67. Plaintiffs architect completed the Site Plans in full compliance with Defendants

ordinances and has provided the Defendant with any and all information requested by Defendant. 68. 69. Defendant has acted and continues to act in bad faith. On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff email the city manager two copies of the Site Plan

and followed up with a telephone call but the city manger has refused to respond to the e-mail or return the telephone call. 70. Plaintiff has incurred substantial economic losses including the loss of construction financing, payments made to its architect and various other and substantial payments made to contractors. In addition, Plaintiff has lost yet another opportunity to begin construction during Michigans limited building season. 71. Plaintiff currently meets in a rented space in another local church for religious

worship and instruction.

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 10 of 21

Pg ID 10

COUNT I Violations of Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. (Equal Protection) 72. 73. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 70 as if fully restated herein. Defendant has in force a zoning code that divides the city of Inkster into 11

zoning districts. Churches are permitted, subject to Special Conditions, in the following zones: R-1A, B, C, RM and RM-1. 74. In addition to residences, the following uses are allowed in the same zoning

districts as churches without being subject to Special Conditions Child/Adult Foster Care (6 or less) Public Libraries Public Parks Public Recreation Facilities Cemeteries Crafts and Fine Arts (instruction) 75. The following uses, in addition to churches, are allowed in the R zoning

districts subject to special conditions: Child/Adult Foster Care (7 or less) Assisted Living Facilities/Elderly Housing (RM/, RM-1) Nursing and Convalescent Homes (RM, RM-1) Private Noncommercial Recreation Centers Institutional Community Recreation Centers Golf Courses (R-1) Non Profit Public, Parochial and Private Elementary, Intermediate or High schools Colleges, Universities and Institutions of Higher Learning, Public and Private Nursery Schools, Day Nurseries, and Child/Adult Care Centers 76. None of those uses set forth in the preceding paragraphs are subject to the same

Special Conditions as churches/parochial schools, including but not limited to the following: minimum lot area of 2 acres, and prohibition against location of a church within 1,000 feet of another church facility. 77. Plaintiff owns 6.16 acres of land.

10

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 11 of 21

Pg ID 11

78.

The Inkster Code effectively prohibits Plaintiff and any other religious

organization from locating their church and parochial school in Inkster unless such organization meets a series of burdensome Special Conditions, which apply only to churches and parochial schools. 79. Secular organizations such as private clubs, fraternal organizations and lodge

halls are free to locate in any one of three districts: B-2, B-3 and M-1. They are not subject to Special Conditions. 80. Under the current Inkster Code, there is no property available in the City of

Inkster which can be used for church and parochial school purposes without obtaining a variance or correcting environmental contamination conditions. 81. Churches may only be potentially located in the cities residential zoning district

and then only after obtaining special permission, in the form of a variance, from city officials. 82. Plaintiffs inability to use the building at 2727 Inkster Road as a church and

parochial school, or construct a new church building on the premises, or to obtain property for a church in any of the business districts, burdens Plaintiffs exercise of religion by making difficult or impossible ministries, which are essential to the religious beliefs and exercises of the organization and its members: weekly assembly of the congregation for worship; weekly

preaching, including speech relating to personal morality and God; prayer meetings; pastoral counseling; bible studies; social gatherings for church members; religious charitable and social outreach to members of the community; and evangelizing. 83. By being forced to meet in rental facilities, the Plaintiff experiences the following

hindrances or disruptions of its religious ministries; the congregations weekly services; prayer meetings; outreach activities and social gatherings must be scheduled only when space is not in

11

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 12 of 21

Pg ID 12

use by the lessor; the size of the assembly for worship and other ministries is limited by the size of the rented property; service projects at the rented property are not feasible; expressions of faith through decoration of the place of worship are not feasible; funds must be diverted from the congregations religious and charitable purposes to pay for the rental property. 84. Section 2(b)(1) of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000, Section cc(b)(1), prohibits Defendant from treating a religious organization less favorably than a secular organization. 85. Inksters Code excludes religious organizations from zoning districts open to non-

religious member organizations, and limits religious institutions to residential zoning districts subject to Special Conditions not applicable to other uses within said districts. 86. Thus, Defendant imposes and implements a land use regulation which treats

Plaintiff less favorably than non-religious assemblies/institutions in violation of RLUIPA. 87. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT II Violations of Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. (Exclusion) 88. 89. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 86 as if fully rewritten herein. Section 2(b)(3) of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc (b)(3) prohibits Defendant

from excluding religious organizations from its limits: (3) Exclusion and limits No government shall impose 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.

12

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 13 of 21

Pg ID 13

90.

Not one classification in Inksters Code permits use by religious organizations

except subject to unreasonable Special Conditions or by variance. 91. Thus, Defendant totally excludes and/or unreasonably limits religious assemblies

within its jurisdiction in violation of RLUIPA. 92. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT III Denial of Equal Protection Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 93. 94. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 though 91 as if fully rewritten herein. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the Defendant from treating persons

unequally on the basis of their religious beliefs. 94. The Inkster Code prevents Dr. Spann and Plaintiffs members from using the

Property as a church and parochial school. 95. The Inkster Code explicitly and freely permits all members of non-religious

private clubs, fraternal organizations and lodge halls to locate and function within the city without being subject to any special conditions. Religious organizations are restricted to the district and residential districts may only locate therein subject to special conditions. 96. Within the district and residential districts to which religious organizations are

restricted, they are subjected to special conditions not applicable to the other uses permitted in those districts. 97. For purposes of land use regulations, a wide variety of secular membership

organizations, as well as other secular uses, are similarly situated and not distinguishable from

13

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 14 of 21

Pg ID 14

parochial schools and religious organizations. Any differences in the activities of religious and non-religious organizations are not legally cognizable for purposes of government licensing/zoning. 98. Because there is neither a compelling governmental interest not rational basis for

the Inkster Code to permit parochial schools or non-religious membership organizations unconditional use of their properties, or to subject religious organizations to special conditions not applicable to non-religious organizations, Inksters Code denies Plaintiff and its members the Fourteenth Amendments guarantee of equal protection. 99. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT IV First Amendment (Exclusion) 100. 101. Plaintiff herein incorporates paragraphs 1 through 99 as if fully rewritten herein. The lack of any zone in which Plaintiff or other newly arrived or newly formed

churches may locate, i.e., the total exclusion of churches from Defendant except by permission of the City by way of a variance, infringes on Plaintiffs free exercise of religion. 102. The zoning exclusions and special conditions as referenced herein are not in

furtherance of any compelling governmental interest and have no rational basis. 103. The zoning exclusions and special conditions as referenced herein are not

narrowly tailored to achieve Defendants governmental interests. 104. Inability to use the Property or to obtain a suitable location elsewhere severely

limits the churchs worship and other religious and charitable activities.

14

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 15 of 21

Pg ID 15

105.

Plaintiffs inability to use its Property has caused it substantial economic losses

that interferes with its ability to carry out its religious mission. 106. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT V Violation of Right to Freedom of Speech Under the First Amendment Of the United States Constitution 107. 108. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 105 as if fully rewritten herein. Plaintiff engages in speech protected under the free speech clause of the First

Amendment through prayer, preaching, singing, evangelism and teaching. 109. Defendants zoning restrictions, classifications and conditions regarding churches

and religious organizations burden and infringe upon Plaintiffs religious speech expression. 110. Defendants exclusion of churches and imposition of special conditions not

applicable to non-religious organizations is a content based restriction on Plaintiffs speech and, thus, violates Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 111. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT VI Inverse Condemnation De Facto Taking 112. 113. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 110 as if fully rewritten herein. Defendant has interfered with Plaintiffs use of the Property in order to further

and promote the Defendants own plans to acquire the Property for itself or to further Hendricks desire that the Property be acquired by the Cathedral of Faith.

15

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 16 of 21

Pg ID 16

114.

Defendants interference with the use of the Property has interfered with

Plaintiffs property rights to such an extent that Defendant has taken the Property. 115. As a result of Defendants actions in interfering with the use of the Property,

Defendant has inversely condemned the Property. 116. 117. Defendant may not take the Property without just compensation. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT VII Inverse Condemnation Regulatory Taking 118. 119. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 117 as if fully rewritten herein. As a government agency, Defendant may be liable for taking private property by

overburdening the property with regulations. 120. Defendant has taken the Property through its zoning and permit regulations

because those regulations do not further a legitimate government interest. 121. Defendants zoning and permit regulations deprive Plaintiff of economically

viable use of the Property, considering: the character of Defendants actions; the economic effect of Defendants zoning and permit regulations on the Property; and the extent by which the zoning and permit regulations have interfered with distinct economic backed expectations. 122. The effect of Inksters Code and permit regulations have been to deprive Plaintiff

of the free use and enjoyment of its property.

16

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 17 of 21

Pg ID 17

123.

Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT VIII Procedural Due Process Under Michigan Constitution 124. 125. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 123 as if fully rewritten herein. Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution states: No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 125. Procedural due process required Defendant to give Plaintiff notice and an

opportunity to be heard before taking its property. 126. Plaintiff was deprived of its rights regarding the Property without notice and

without the opportunity for a hearing by, among other things, Defendant: a. Adopting and enforcing the current Town Center District without notice to the affected property owners or tenants of the consequences of the rezoned Town Center District. Imposing a 1000 foot restriction between churches in any zone; Requiring special permits and variances for a church to be located in any zone; Excluding churches from zoning districts open to non-religious member organizations. The acts or omissions of Defendant were intentional. The acts or omissions of Defendant were the proximate cause of the deprivation

b. c. d.

127. 128.

of Plaintiffs procedural due process rights protected by the Michigan Constitution. 129. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00).

17

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 18 of 21

Pg ID 18

COUNT IX Substantive Due Process Under Michigan Constitution 130. 131. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 129 as if fully rewritten herein. Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution states:

No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 132. power. 133. Defendants actions toward Plaintiff were arbitrary and unreasonable, and either Substantive due process prohibits the deliberate and arbitrary use of governmental

failed to advance a legitimate government interest or were an unreasonable means of advancing a legitimate government interest. 134. 135. The acts or omissions of Defendant were intentional. The acts or omissions of Defendant were the proximate cause of the deprivation

of Plaintiffs substantive due process rights protected by the Michigan Constitution. 136. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). COUNT X Equal Protection under Michigan Constitution 137. 138. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 137 as if fully rewritten herein. Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution states:

No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 139. of the laws. Defendants actions toward Plaintiff have denied Plaintiff equal protection

18

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 19 of 21

Pg ID 19

140. owners. 141.

Plaintiff has been treated less favorably by Defendant than other property

Other properties have been treated more favorably because Hendricks

used his position to further the interests of the Cathedral of Faith to the detriment of Plaintiff. 142. Other properties have been treated more favorably because Defendant has

not designated those properties for taking as part of the District. 143. 144. The acts or omissions of Defendant were intentional. The acts or omissions of Defendant were the proximate cause of the deprivation

of Plaintiffs equal protection rights protected by the Michigan Constitution. 145. Plaintiff has been damaged and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to

be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court would enter judgmnent in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows: (a) As to Count I, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (b) As to Count II, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00).

19

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 20 of 21

Pg ID 20

(c) As to Count III, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (d) As to Count IV, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (e) As to Count V, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (f) As to Count VI, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (g) As to Count VII, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (h) As to Count VIII, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (i) As to Count IX, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00);

20

2:11-cv-13095-NGE-PJK Doc # 1

Filed 07/18/11 Pg 21 of 21

Pg ID 21

(j) As to Count X, an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but being not less than One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); (k) An award of damages in the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in this matter; and (l) Such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, T.C. Spann Bible Institute hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues triable by jury in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Charles A. McKinney_________ Charles A. McKinney (0039214)

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES MCKINNEY

137 N. Main Street, Suite 618 Dayton, OH 45402 PH: 937.461.9000 FX: 937.461.9640 charles@charlesmckinney.com Attorney for Plaintiffs, T.C. Spann Bible Institute

21