LAKE ELSINORE -- Five months after an appeals court affirmed the city unconstitutionally prevented a church from relocating to a downtown building, the church is moving forward in the next phase of its lawsuit and seeking nearly $2 million in damages.

Citing a decision earlier this week by District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson, church attorney Robert Tyler said the Elsinore Christian Center will be seeking the damages at a trial scheduled to begin this summer in Los Angeles.

Tyler said Wednesday the intent all along hasn't been for the church to gain financially from the lawsuit but to hold city leaders accountable for their actions.

"This case is not and was not about the money," he said. "This case is about a reckless city council that chose to violate the civil rights of my client despite clear law presented to them by my office."

The city's lawyers, including City Attorney Barbara Leibold, could not be reached for comment Tuesday or Wednesday. But Leibold has as recently as August said she still stands behind the council's 2001 decision to deny the church's request for a permit to relocate.

The church had wanted to move into a Main Street building that had been housing a grocery. The Planning Commission and the City Council each denied the project, with members of both saying they preferred to keep the building zoned for commercial purposes.

Shortly after the council's denial, Elsinore Christian Center filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles alleging the city had violated its rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act signed by President Bill Clinton in 2000.

The law allows churches to locate almost anywhere -- even if it means overriding local zoning ordinances.

In considering the suit, Wilson ruled the city had violated the law. But he wondered whether the law itself was constitutional and asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to settle the matter.

That court did so in August, issuing a memorandum that cited its decision in an earlier case that the law is constitutional.

On Tuesday, Wilson set a trial date of July 31 for the next phase of the case.

Tyler said that in the trial the church will seek $1.9 million in damages from the city for the money the church lost when it could not move into the grocery store building. With no permanent home after that, Tyler said, it lost members and, thus, revenue sources.

For the court to hold the city financially responsible for what it did would be a significant decision, he said.

The case has been closely watched around the country as one of the first tests of the 2000 law.

"This is not really about the money but about the necessity to show that municipalities cannot violate the civil liberties of churches merely because they prefer tax revenue or have some discriminatory animus toward churches," Tyler said.

City Councilman Thomas Buckley, who was not on the council when it denied the church's permit request, defended the city. The city and its attorneys have discussed the possibility of appealing the lower courts' decisions to the Supreme Court and Buckley said he would be in favor of that.

The law, he said, takes away one of the fundamental rights cities have.

"The problem is the ability to properly plan," Buckley said. "This is not about the church, per se. It's about the right to properly plan. That is one of the last bastions of local government."

- Contact staff writer Jose Carvajal at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2624, or jcarvajal@californian.com.