Isaiah Humphries v. Pennsylvania State University

── Isaiah Humphries v. Pennsylvania State University ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 25-2122 ISAIAH HUMPHRIES, Appellant v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; JAMES FRANKLIN; DAMION BARBER Appeal from U.S. District Court, M.D. Pa. Judge Matthew W. Brann No. 4:20-cv-00064 Before: MATEY, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 16, 2026 Decided: NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION* CHUNG, Circuit Judge. Former Penn State football player Isaiah Humphries appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing with prejudice his Third Amended Complaint, asserting multiple claims that he suffered abuse at the hands of his teammates, and that his coaches and school failed to adequately respond to reports of that abuse. For the reasons set forth below, Humphries fails to plausibly allege any of his claims and we will affirm the order of the District Court. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent.  I. BACKGROUND1 Humphries was recruited to join the Penn State football team as a freshman in the 2018- 2019 school year. By December 2018, Humphries had transferred schools. In the interim, Humphries endured “a campaign to harass and haze” himself and other “selected members of the Penn State football team” at the hands of four of his teammates. A146 ⁋ 143. The harassment involved threats to sexually assault Humphries, as well as instances of sexual brutality toward Humphries and other victims. This included perpetrators wrestling Humphries and other victims to the ground and placing or “smack[ing]” their genitalia on victims’ faces, A149 ⁋ 154, or placing their penises between victims’ buttocks while naked in the locker-room shower. The harassment occurred, in unspecified form, two or three times a week in three locations: Penn State’s Lasch Building, the Morgan Academic Center, and Beaver Hall dormitory. Humphries is smaller than his abusers in weight and stature. He describes himself as compassionate and sensitive, refined, well-groomed, and not physically aggressive. Humphries is a musician, presents as affluent, does not use vulgarity, and does “not embrace the angry gangster or thug persona.” A145 ⁋ 138. Because of these attributes, Humphries alleges that he “was perceived by [his abusers] as weak and fail[ing] to live up to the expectations of stereotypical toughness and masculinity expected of a collegiate football player.” A145-46 ⁋ 139. Humphries asserts that he was targeted as a result. 1 Because we write for the parties, we recite only the facts pertinent to our decision. The facts are drawn from Humphries’s Third Amended Complaint and, at this stage, we accept them as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (in ruling on a motion to dismiss, “a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint”). 2 Humphries filed a ten-count complaint against Penn State, Coach Franklin, and one of his abusers, Damion Barber. Only the claims against Penn State and Coach Franklin (“Defendants”) remain. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims against them, and Humphries appeals. II. DISCUSSION2 A. Title IX Claim Title IX provides, subject to exceptions not relevant here: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discriminati