Ebоny Nicole MOORE, Appellant v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, a Pennsylvania Educational Institution; Eric Mobley; Kristen Foley
No. 16-3300
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
January 4, 2017
674 F. Appx. 239
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 3, 2017
v.
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, a Pennsylvania Educational Institution; Eric Mobley; Kristen Foley
James Bucci, Esq., Genova Burns, Philadelphia, PA, Casey R. Langel, Esq., Lenox Socey Wilgus Formidoni Brown Giоrdano & Casey, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
OPINION *
Pro se appellant Ebony Moore appeals the District Court‘s order granting summary judgment to the defendants. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm.
Moore is a former member of Temple University‘s track and field team who competed in throwing events, such as discus. On April 25, 2011, Moore‘s great-uncle, Othello Mahone, forwarded to Temple University an email from Moore that alleged that she had been bullied, sexually harassed, and otherwise mistreated by her coaches and teammates. Kristen Fоley, then a member of Temple‘s athletic department, held a meeting on May 4, 2011, with Moore, Mahone, and then-Coach Eriс Mobley to address Moore‘s allegations. Several hours after the meeting, Moore sent Coach Mobley an email stаting that she would not be attending the Atlantic 10 Championship—which Mobley viewed as the team‘s most important competition of thе year—that weekend because she had final examinations. Coach Mobley soon thereafter recommended thаt Moore‘s athletic scholarship not be renewed for the following year and removed her from the team, and on May 20, 2011, Moore was informed via letter that her scholarship would not be renewed. Moore filed a grievance with Temple‘s Athletiс Appeals Panel, which upheld the decision not to renew
On July 29, 2013, Moore filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which was later removed to the District Court. She alleged that the defendants—Temple, Coach Mobley, and Foley—had, among other things, sexually harassed her, verbally abused her, and then removed her from the team and canceled her athletic scholarship because she complained about that mistreatment. She raised claims, as relevant here, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and
We have jurisdiction under
We agree in full with the District Court‘s well-reasoned opinion. The statute of limitations under Title IX and § 1983 is two years. See Pearson v. Sec‘y Dep‘t of Corr., 775 F.3d 598, 602 (3d Cir. 2015); Bougher v. Univ. of Pitt., 882 F.2d 74, 77-78 (3d Cir. 1989). Moore‘s claims accrued, and the statutes of limitations began to run, “when [she] knew or should have known of the injury upon which [her] action is based.” Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Sameric Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998)); see also King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754, 762 (5th Cir. 2015). Moore filed her complaint on July 29, 2013; thus, any claims that accrued before July 29, 2011 are time-barred.
Moore‘s claims concerning the non-renewal of her athletic scholarship accrued on May 20, 2011, when she recеived formal notice of the non-renewal, and thus these claims are untimely. Moore filed a grievance to the Appeals Panel as to this decision, but because the grievance procedure here “is a remedy for a prior decisiоn, not an opportunity to influence that decision before it is made,” the grievance does not delay the accrual of the cause of action. Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 261 (1980); see generally Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981) (per curiam); Jakimas v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 485 F.3d 770, 778 (3d Cir. 2007). Nor does the pendency of a grievance toll the limitations period. See Ricks, 449 U.S. at 261 & n.15. The same analysis applies to Moore‘s various allegations concerning her treatment while a member of the team, whiсh pre-dated her scholarship non-renewal.
We also agree with the District Court that the undisputed evidence shows that Moоre was removed from the team in May 2011. As the District Court and the defendants have stated, there is substantial evidence—Coach Mobley‘s affidavit, an admission in one of Moore‘s (pro se) legal filings, a May 26, 2011 letter from Mahone, and Moore‘s deposition testimony—that establishes that her removal occurred at that time. While Moore argues on appeal
Finally, as the District Court held, while Moore‘s claim that the Appeals Panel retaliated against her for complaining about mistreatment is not time-barred, it does lack merit. Through Mahone, Moore objected to the treatment she received on April 25, 2011, and the Appeals Panel made its decision on July 28, 2011. Moore has presented no specific allegations suggesting that any member of the Appeals Panel had a retaliatory motive, and this temporal proximity, without more, is insufficient to show the causation neсessary to survive summary judgment. See LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass‘n, 503 F.3d 217, 233 (3d Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court‘s judgment. Moore‘s motion to expand the record is denied. See, e.g., Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 435 (3d Cir. 2013) (a party may supplement the record on appeal in only “exceptional circumstances“).
Ebony Nicole Moore, Pro Se
* This dispositiоn is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.