Clark v. NYCHA
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-02741
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sean A. Clark v. NYCHA, Judge Ho dismissed the case with prejudice, denied Clark’s summary-judgment motion, and closed the case.
Sean A. Clark’s claims against the New York City Housing Authority were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Sean A. Clark v. NYCHA, Sean A. Clark, representing himself, sued the New York City Housing Authority over alleged race and disability discrimination under federal housing and disability laws, and sought municipal liability under a civil-rights statute.
The court said the complaint was nearly identical to claims Clark had brought in two earlier related proceedings, where he had been given opportunities to amend but did not do so. The court also said all of the claims were filed too late because the alleged conduct occurred between 2006 and 2020, and the latest allegations were more than three years before this case was filed.
Judge Ho granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss, denied Clark’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. The court also dismissed Clark’s sanctions request as moot and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Clark v. NYCHA · No. 1:24-cv-02741
- Ho
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Sean A. Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). He alleged race and disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. He also asserted municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that can impose liability on local governmental entities in certain circumstances.
Clark’s claims were based on alleged NYCHA actions in 2006, 2015, 2018, and 2020. NYCHA moved to dismiss. Clark filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court treated as his opposition to NYCHA’s dismissal motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court noted that Clark had brought nearly identical claims against NYCHA in two earlier related proceedings in the same district. In both proceedings, the courts gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint, but he did not do so. The court found that the complaint in this case was nearly identical in all relevant respects to the complaint in the later earlier proceeding and dismissed the claims for the reasons given in those earlier decisions.
The court also concluded that the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. It stated that the limitations period was three years for the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, two years for the Fair Housing Act claims, and three years for the § 1983 claims. Because more than three years had passed between Clark’s most recent alleged conduct in 2020 and the filing of this complaint in 2024, the court held that all of the claims were time-barred. The court determined that amendment would be futile.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho granted NYCHA’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Clark’s claims with prejudice and without leave to amend because he had already received two opportunities to amend and had not done so. The court denied Clark’s motion for summary judgment. It also dismissed Clark’s sanctions request as moot because a magistrate judge had previously denied that request. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the specified filings and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.