MEMORANDUM & ORDER Pro se plaintiffs Christian Killoran and Terrie Killoran (together, “the Parents”), individually and as parents to A.K., a child with Down Syndrome, (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against defendants Westhampton Beach School District, (“Westhampton” or the “District”), Michael Radday, (“the Superintendent”), Suzanne M. Mensch, James Hulme, Joyce L. Donneson, George R. Kast, Jr., and Halsey C. Stevens (together, the “School Board,” and collectively with Westhampton and the Superintendent, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ Complaint purports to allege an equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983″). (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek compensatory education, compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint (hereafter, “Dismissal Motion”). (See ECF No. 12.) After careful consideration, for the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Dismissal Motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND1 I. Relevant Litigation History This action is one in a series of civil rights litigations brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants concerning the educational placement of Plaintiffs’ son, A.K. Of particular relevance, is this Court’s September 7, 2019 Memorandum and Order in A.K. v. Westhampton Beach School District, No. 17-CV-0866, 2019 WL 4736969 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019), dismissing Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 equal protection-based claim without prejudice (hereafter, the “2019 Order”). (See Ex. P-1, 2019 Order, ECF No. 1-1, attached to Compl;2 see also Compl. 19.)3 In that case, with regard to Plaintiffs’ class of one equal protection claim, this Court found: [T]here is no question that Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that A.K. was treated differently from any similarly situated individual. Rather, in wholly conclusory fashion, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants ‘reflexively outsource[ ] the post-elementary education of every single alternatively assessed special education child like A.K…. Defendants have also displayed a unique and particularly offensive position towards A.K. In refusing A.K.’s enrollment, A.K. became the only child, including all special education children, to ever have his basic enrollment rights denied by Defendants…. Yet Plaintiffs fail to allege how any alternatively assessed child’s circumstances are prima facie identical to A.K.’s or how A.K. was treated differently from any such child…. Thus, because Plaintiffs fail to identify any similarly situated individual at all, much less one who was treated differently from A.K., Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ex. P-1 at 49-50 (internal quotation marks omitted).4 II. The Instant Suit Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ more recent Complaint in which they reassert a class of one equal protection claim pursuant to Section 1983. In the interest of brevity, the Court will assume familiarity with the facts and only addresses those facts relevant to the instant motion. A.K., a seventeen-year-old student at the time the instant Complaint was filed, was born with Down Syndrome. (Compl. 1.) Plaintiff resides in the Remsenburg-Speonk School District which contains only one elementary school and has contracts with Defendant District as well as other districts to educate its middle and high school students. (Compl.
8-10; Ex. P-1 at 5.) Despite Plaintiffs’ interest in sending A.K. to Defendant District for middle school for the 2015-2016 academic year, Remsenburg’s initial individualized education plan (“IEP”) for A.K. recommended his placement in Eastport School District. (See Ex. P-2, Jan. 26, 2017 Order of Independent Hearing Officer Nancy M. Lederman, at 79.) Following Plaintiffs’ administrative challenge of Remsenburg’s placement decision, Remsenburg modified A.K.’s IEP and recommended that Westhampton implement an individualized program to accommodate his placement. (See id. at 9-10.) Westhampton declined to enroll A.K. and additional administrative proceedings followed with respect to the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years. (See id. at 9-10.) At the direction of Independent Hearing Officer (“IHO”) Nancy M. Lederman (“IHO Lederman”), in September 2016, Westhampton enrolled A.K. and convened a Committee on Special Education (“CSE”). (Ex. P-1 at 9.) The CSE recommended that A.K. be placed in a program in Eastport for the 2016-2017 school year. (See id.) Plaintiffs again administratively challenged the District’s recommendation. (See id.) In her January 26, 2017 decision, IHO Lederman found that Westhampton had failed to provide A.K. with a free and appropriate education (“FAPE”) for the 2015-2016 and 20162017 academic years. (Compl. 29; Ex. P-2 at 37-42.) IHO Lederman noted that there was “considerable misunderstanding among all the parties about the obligation of Westhampton [ ] concerning A.K.” and that both parties were “equally culpable.” (Ex. P-2 at 11.) On April 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed another administrative complaint against Westhampton challenging the recommendation made by the District’s CSE for A.K.’s placement outside the District for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. (Ex. P-1 at 18.) IHO James A. Monk (“IHO Monk”) found no FAPE violation and concluded that the May 31, 2017 IEP developed by the CSE was reasonably calculated to enable A.K. to receive educational benefits. (See id. at 19.) IHO Monk noted that the parties did not disagree about what constituted the least restrictive environment (“LRE”) for A.K., but that Plaintiffs were insistent that such program must be offered in-district, even if A.K. was the only student in class. (See id. at 20.) The IHO concluded that Westhampton was not required to create a program suitable for A.K.’s needs and ordered the parties to complete the placement process for 2017-2018, ruling that “[t]he parents’ insistence on an in-district program and placement are not a viable alternative for the 2017-2018 school year and should NOT be a consideration for placement by the CSE.” (Id. at 20-21.) On appeal, State Review Officer (“SRO”) Steven Krolak (“SRO Krolak”) upheld IHO Monk’s finding that there was no FAPE violation for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. (See id. at 23.) Specifically, SRO Krolak found that “Westhampton attempted to provide Plaintiffs with two options for out-of-district placements that were capable of implementing the special class placement recommended on [A.K.'s] IEP for the 2017-18 school year,” however, “rather than investigate the out of district options, the parent[s] sent a letter to each CSE participant warning them not to attend the June 2017 CSE meeting.” (Id. at 22 (internal quotation marks omitted).) SRO Krolak concluded that Westhampton did not deny A.K. a FAPE by recommending a special class placement and attempting to locate one in a neighboring school district. (Id. at 23.) However, SRO Krolak noted that “while at the time of the hearing in this matter, placement in the district was not a viable option, this may not always be the case,” and therefore “overturned the portion of the IHO’s order that directed that when the CSE reconvenes to recommend an appropriate placement for [A.K.], the CSE should not consider placement of [A.K.] in the district.” (Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).) On March 8, 2018, and June 6, 2018 respectively, Plaintiffs filed two administrative complaints challenging the District’s recommendations for A.K. for the 2017-2018 academic year. (Ex. P-3, Aug. 3, 2018 Order of IHO Leah L. Murphy, at 2.) Plaintiffs sought to have A.K. placed in a newly formed special education program being implemented at the District’s middle school. (Compl.
