In Anselmo v. Cnty. of Shasta, No. 2:12-361 WBS EFB, 2012 WL 2090437 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2012), the court ruled that an individual and the non-religious organization of which he was the sole owner stated a claim under the “substantial burden” prong of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when the county precluded him from building a chapel on his property. The plaintiffs alleged that the individual’s ability to build and use a chapel on his land was “central to his ability to worship his religion in accordance with his core beliefs ... .” He described his ability to construct the chapel as “an act essential as a demonstration of his faith.” The court ruled that it was more than a mere inconvenience without the chapel for him to drive three hours every day in order to worship, but left for trial the question whether this burden is a substantial burden under RLUIPA. After observing that the court knew of no precedent squarely ruling that qualified immunity should be extended under RLUIPA and no Ninth Circuit case deciding that damages are available against individuals for violations of RLUIPA, the court ruled the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity anyway based on precedent proliferating the view without analysis. Among the reasons given was the novelty of a non-religious property owner asserting rights under RLUIPA. The court ruled the defendants were immune from monetary damages. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ free exercise claim for lack of evidence of disparate enforcement or religious animus; denied their due process claim; denied their RLUIPA claim premised upon the ADA and the county building code prohibiting construction without a license because neither are zoning, landmarking or land use regulations; and denied their RLUIPA claim premised upon the “equal terms” provision because no religious institution was involved.