MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Mohamed Samura, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on February 24, 2021 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting a race discrimination claim under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq., against Defendants Maria Figueroa (“Figueroa”), Castleton Park Management, and Castleton Preservation LLC (“Castleton Preservation”) for allegedly discriminating against Plaintiff in connection with his apartment application. See generally Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 5.1 Subsequently, by Order of then-Chief Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, this action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See Transfer Order, ECF No. 2. On September 30, 2021, Defendants Figueroa and Castleton Preservation (together, “Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”). See ECF No. 16. By Memorandum & Order dated May 27, 2022 (the “May 27, 2022 Order”), the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the Complaint in its entirety without prejudice, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. See generally May 27, 2022 Order, ECF No. 31. Familiarity with the May 27, 2022 Order is assumed herein. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, asserting an FHA race, national origin, and familial status discrimination claim. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 33.2 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 37; Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Br.”), ECF No. 37-1; Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Defs.’ Reply”), ECF No. 40. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion. See Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Br.”), ECF No. 39. Because, as set forth below, Plaintiff’s FHA claim remains untimely — the Amended Complaint having failed to cure the timeliness issue identified in the May 27, 2022 Order — Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. BACKGROUND I. The Complaint The allegations contained in the initial Complaint are detailed in the Court’s May 27, 2022 Order. See May 27, 2022 Order at 2-5; see also generally Compl.3 In summary, and as relevant here, Plaintiff, who is African American, alleged that he was an applicant on a waiting list for over five years for a one-bedroom apartment in a building managed by Defendant Castleton Preservation; that in August 2017, Plaintiff was called for and went to an interview and presented all required documentation to Defendant Figueroa; that when the interview started, Defendant Figueroa asked about Plaintiff’s race, marital status, and family composition; that in the middle of the interview, Defendant Figueroa called her boss and referenced that Plaintiff was African American and a widow and that his son was living with his mother; and that when Defendant Figueroa and her boss finished their conversation, Defendant Figueroa told Plaintiff that “the management” would make a decision and contact Plaintiff within two weeks. Plaintiff further alleged that on August 22, 2017, “the management” sent a rejection letter to Plaintiff (the “Rejection Letter”). Plaintiff attached a copy of the Rejection Letter to the Complaint.4 The Rejection Letter, inter alia, stated that Defendant Castleton Preservation cannot accept Plaintiff’s application because his “household composition does not meet established occupancy requirements;” included in the margin adjacent to this typed explanation a handwritten note stating, “full time student Rule;” stated: “If you disagree with this determination, you may request a meeting to discuss/appeal the rejection,” which request must be made “in writing by…14 calendar days from today’s date;” stated: “If we do not receive a written request from you within that time, the rejection will be considered final;” and stated: “Your response to this letter does not preclude you from exercising other avenues available if you believe that you are being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap.” Plaintiff additionally alleged that, by letter dated August 31, 2017, he appealed the rejection, noting in his appeal letter that while “[t]he fact remains [I] am a [full-time] student, it is also true that I should be considered [for an apartment];”5 that Defendants “fail[ed] to reply and totally disregard[ed] [his] plea to look at [his] case;” that he is “always calling the office but they always say they don’t [have] information at the moment;” and that Plaintiff was aware of Caucasian full-time students living in Castleton Preservation buildings from 2009 to 2012 and while he was in college. II. The May 27, 2022 Order By the May 27, 2022 Order, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. See generally May 27, 2022 Order. The Court concluded that because the alleged discriminatory conduct — the rejection of Plaintiff’s application on the basis of race — occurred on August 22, 2017, Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was filed approximately three-and-one-half years later, was time-barred under the FHA’s two-year statute of limitations. See May 27, 2022 Order at 8. The Court noted that Plaintiff was aware of the Rejection Letter by at least August 31, 2017, as evidenced by his appeal of the rejection, and that even a liberal construction of Plaintiff’s Complaint did not support a reading that any of the events alleged in the Complaint or referenced in the attachments thereto placed the relevant date later than August 2017. See May 27, 2022 Order at 8 n.8. The Court also concluded that equitable tolling was not warranted on the record before the Court because even assuming that Plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence, which was not clear from the record, Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate — and the record did not reflect — the existence of any “extraordinary circumstance,” let alone one that caused Plaintiff to miss the relevant filing deadline. See May 27, 2022 Order at 10-11. In the May 27, 2022 Order, the Court noted that Plaintiff did not appear to be arguing that Defendants fraudulently concealed his FHA claim, that the allegations in the Complaint did not indicate fraudulent concealment, and that the Rejection Letter’s reference to “other avenues available” undercuts a suggestion of fraudulent concealment. See May 27, 2022 Order at 11 n.10. The Court further noted that Plaintiff did not appear to be arguing — and the record did not reflect — that the continuing violation doctrine applied. See May 27, 2022 Order at 11 n.10. Although the Court dismissed the Complaint in its entirety without prejudice as time-barred, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. See May 27, 2022 Order at 11-12. In granting leave to amend, the Court indicated that if Plaintiff chose to file an Amended Complaint, additional factual allegations supporting Plaintiff’s equitable tolling argument, if any, could be included therein. See May 27, 2022 Order at 12.6 III. The Amended Complaint7 The factual allegations in the Amended Complaint largely overlap with those in the initial Complaint. Compare Compl. with Am. Compl. The Amended Complaint does, however, add certain allegations. As arguably relevant here, the Amended Complaint additionally alleges that in September 2017, Plaintiff called the Castleton Park management office and asked about the status of his appeal and was told that his appeal was “under review,” see Am. Compl. 24; that in September 2017, Plaintiff moved to Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville, New York, where he remained until September 2020 and that he did not have access to a computer during the three years he resided at Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, see Am. Compl.
