Humphries v. Penn State et. al, Court Case

Memorandum Opinion

Matthew W. Brann, Chief District Judge.

In January 2020, former Pennsylvania State University football player Isaiah Humphries sued the University, its head football coach James Franklin, and his former teammate Damion Barber. His headline-generating complaint alleged that while a member of the University’s football team, he was subjected to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by four of his teammates—to which the school and its football coach turned a blind eye. But for whatever his complaint possessed in attention-grabbing details, it lacked in substance.

Since Humphries’ initial filing, this Court has provided him three opportunities to refashion his complaint—most recently after a motion to dismiss filed by all three Defendants. I granted that motion to dismiss in part but provided Humphries leave to amend. I largely allowed his claims against Barber, one of his alleged abusers, to advance; but that was not the case for his claims against the University and Franklin. On these claims, my instructions were clear: cite legal authority showing that the University and Franklin can be held responsible for the acts of the players; and specify who committed the abuse, when it occurred, what was reported to the University employees, when that report was made, and how those employees responded.

Despite numbering 105 pages, Humphries’ fourth complaint does little better than his third. Rather than delineating a timeline or clearly outlining his legal theories, his latest complaint is rife with vestigial references to arguments and documents that this Court has told him do not matter. Penn State and Franklin have now moved to dismiss the remaining counts against them under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6).

I find that Humphries has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Penn State and Franklin and grant their motion to dismiss Count I, Count II, Count IV, Count V, and Count VIII with prejudice.