Reported / Citable
Background
Donald Ray Long, proceeding pro se, sued the Dallas Housing Authority, a property management company, and a debt collector over housing-related disputes and debt collection activity spanning 2019–2021. Long alleged that DHA improperly denied his relocation requests, approved rent increases without justification, failed to intervene in eviction proceedings, and ultimately terminated his Section 8 housing voucher in February 2021. He also claimed his former landlord subjected him to fraudulent fees and that a debt collector, ProCollect, attempted to collect an allegedly invalid debt. Long asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process), and various state-law theories including fraud and constructive eviction.
The complaint was filed on August 26, 2025—more than four years after the last alleged misconduct in February 2021. The magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that are frivolous or fail to state a claim.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all federal claims as time-barred. The Fair Housing Act and Rehabilitation Act both require civil actions within two years of the discriminatory act or disability-related violation; since Long’s claims accrued no later than February 2021 (when DHA terminated his voucher), they expired by February 2023. Similarly, Long’s procedural due process claim under § 1983 is governed by Texas’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations and expired by February 2023. The FDCPA claim—arising from alleged violations in January 2021—expired within one year, well before the August 2025 filing date. The FCRA claim also fell within the two-year discovery period and was time-barred.
Even if the FCRA claim were timely, the court found it failed to state a plausible claim. The FCRA does not create a private right of action for furnishers’ initial reporting of inaccurate information; rather, a private claim under § 1681s-2(b) exists only after a consumer reporting agency notifies the furnisher of a consumer’s dispute. Long alleged only a direct dispute with ProCollect, not notification through a credit reporting agency, so his allegations fell outside the scope of the available private cause of action. The court declined to allow amendment because any amended complaint would still be barred by the statute of limitations. Finally, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over Long’s remaining state-law claims (fraud, constructive eviction, successor liability, and civil conspiracy) and recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Fair Housing Act and Rehabilitation Act claims carry a two-year statute of limitations; for housing voucher termination decisions, claims accrue when the decision is made or the plaintiff learns of it.
- FDCPA claims must be brought within one year of the alleged violation; FCRA claims must be brought within two years of discovery or five years from the violation date, whichever is earlier.
- A private FCRA claim against a furnisher requires allegation that a consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher of the dispute; a direct dispute between a consumer and debt collector does not create liability under the relevant FCRA provision.
- Equitable tolling is available only in rare and exceptional circumstances (active concealment or extraordinary prevention of filing); a plaintiff’s awareness of and active challenge to conduct bars tolling.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the critical importance of timeliness in housing discrimination and debt collection disputes. A plaintiff with potentially meritorious claims—including challenges to Section 8 voucher terminations—can lose entirely if claims are not filed within the statutory period. For housing advocates and pro se litigants, the decision serves as a cautionary example: the two-year deadline for FHA and Rehabilitation Act claims begins to run from the date of the challenged action, not from discovery or filing. Similarly, those disputing debt collection activity should understand the one-year FDCPA deadline and the limited circumstances under which FCRA furnisher liability arises.
The FCRA holding is particularly significant for consumer litigation: consumers who dispute debts directly with collectors but fail to involve consumer reporting agencies may find their federal remedies foreclosed even if reporting improves or is incomplete. The decision reflects the Fifth Circuit’s strict interpretation of the statutory framework and the absence of alternative avenues to challenge furnisher conduct outside the consumer reporting agency notice mechanism.