Varela et al v. Hill et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ERNESTO VARELA, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:23-cv-01016-SEP
)
WILLIAM HAROLD HILL, et al., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the Complaint. In general, Plaintiffs
allege that Hill’s pervasive race-based harassment and threats made their housing unavailable to
them and caused them to move. Two of Plaintiffs’ claims survived various motions to dismiss:
Count II under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and Count III under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617.
Docs. [1-1], [26]. This Order pertains only to Count III under the FHA.
The Fair Housing Act states:
An aggrieved person may commence a civil action in an appropriate United
States district court or State court not later than 2 years after the occurrence
or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice, or the
breach of a conciliation agreement entered into under this subchapter, whichever
occurs last, to obtain appropriate relief with respect to such discriminatory
housing practice or breach.
42 U.S.C. § 3613(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed this
action in state court on July 12, 2023, which is almost exactly five years after they moved,
bringing an end to Defendant’s harassment, on July 14, 2018. See Doc. [1-1] at 3, 9 ¶ 56.
Plaintiffs’ Count III thus appears to be barred by the FHA’s statute of limitations.
In the Eighth Circuit, “a district court sua sponte may dismiss a complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) as long as the dismissal does not precede service of process.” Buckley v. Ray, 848 F.3d
855, 867 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Smith v. Boyd, 945 F.2d 1041, 1043 (8th Cir. 1991)) (affirming
district court’s sua sponte dismissal of time-barred claims); see also Smithrud v. City of St. Paul,
746 F.3d 391, 396 n.3 (8th Cir. 2014) (permitting dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds
under Rule 12(b)(6) despite Defendant’s failure to plead it). The Court will not dismiss Count
III before providing the parties with an opportunity to be heard, however.
Case: 4:23-cv-01016-SEP Doc. #: 75 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall, no later than February 20, 2026,
show cause why Count III of their Complaint should not be dismissed as untimely. The response
may be no longer than five double-spaced pages. Failure by Plaintiffs to respond to this Order
will result in the dismissal of Count III.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may, but is not required to, file a response
to this Order no later than February 20, 2026. Defendant is likewise limited to five double-
spaced pages.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that any response to this Order from either party should
pertain only to the single issue raised by the Court herein.
Dated this 15th day of January, 2025.
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:23-cv-01016-SEP Doc. #: 75 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>