Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02617/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02617-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2617

___________

YAN YAN,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 14-cv-01373)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 2, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 8, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2617 Document: 003112149560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2015
2

Yan Yan appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed her complaint against Pennsylvania State 

University. Yan appeals pro se and, having granted her leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we must determine whether this appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law 

or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We conclude that there is no 

arguable basis to challenge the District Court’s order.1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (dkt. #79) ably sets out all 

the reasons why Yan’s amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could 

be granted: most of the claims were barred by res judicata, the statute of limitations, or 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and her only arguably timely claim was 

completely without merit.2

Instead of challenging the District Court’s legal reasoning, Yan raises three 

frivolous claims in her brief: (1) the District Court erred by failing to grant her motion to 

file an amended complaint; (2) the District Court erred by dismissing her amended 

 

1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s June 29, 

2015 order dismissing Yan’s complaint. We exercise plenary review over a district 

court’s decision to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 

679 F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012).

 

2 Yan claimed that Penn State discriminated against her when she resubmitted 

applications for a PhD degree in 2011 and 2014. But she was not a Penn State student in 

2011 or 2014. Yan has not given any legal support for her frivolous claim that Penn State 

was required to confer a degree on an applicant who is not a student.

Case: 15-2617 Document: 003112149560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2015
3

complaint, since Penn State consented to its filing; and (3) Penn State’s motion to dismiss 

“conflicts” with its concession that she was permitted to file an amended complaint and it 

thus should have been sanctioned.

First, the District Court in effect granted her motion to file an amended complaint, 

as it ordered the Clerk of Court to file docket #42-1 as an amended complaint. Second, 

Penn State was in no way precluded from filing a motion to dismiss her amended 

complaint. In fact, the rules provide that such a motion may be filed in lieu of an answer. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 

153 (3d Cir. 2003) (civil defendant may respond to complaint with motion to dismiss). 

Third, because Penn State was allowed to file a motion to dismiss, there was no reason 

for the District Court to sanction it for doing so.

Because there is no arguable basis for challenging the District Court’s order, we 

will dismiss the appeal as frivolous.3

 

3 Appellant’s Motion to Compel the University for Issuance of a PhD Degree in Genetics, 

Payment for Damages and for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal is granted to the extent 

Yan seeks to have the exhibits filed under seal; it is denied in all other respects. Yan’s 

remaining pending motions are also denied.

Case: 15-2617 Document: 003112149560 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2015