REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Willie G. Smith has submitted for filing a complaint alleging housing discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., along with a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Docs. 1, 2 (IFP motion), 4 (amended complaint), 5 (renewed IFP motion).) His IFP motions are GRANTED for the purposes of this report and recommendation, but this case should be dismissed since it was filed well outside of the FHA's two-year statute of limitations.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) the Court "shall dismiss" any IFP complaint if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief. Here, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. He insists that defendants violated his rights under the FHA in both 2005 and 2008. (Doc. 1; doc. 4 (amended complaint).) The statute of limitations applicable to FHA actions, however, bars actions commencing more than two years after the complained-of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a). While plaintiff tries to frame defendants' actions as a "continuing" violation (doc. 1 at 13), that argument fails. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, "[a] claim arising out of an injury which is 'continuing' only because a putative plaintiff knowingly fails to seek relief is exactly the sort of claim that Congress intended to bar by the . . . limitation period." Telesca v. Village of Kings Creek Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 390 F. App'x 877, 882 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Roberts v. Gadsden Mem'l Hosp., 850 F.2d 1549, 1550 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). In other words, when a plaintiff knows of discrimination and fails to file a claim within the two-year limitations period, he cannot overcome that failure by alleging that the discrimination is continuing.
Id.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, his case should be DISMISSED.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of May, 2012.
_______________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA