NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 22a0524n.06

Case No. 21-4116

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DOE 195, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant-Appellee,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO

ORDER

Before: CLAY, GIBBONS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. Between 1978 and 1998, Dr. Richard Strauss, a university physician and 

athletic team doctor at the Ohio State University, allegedly sexually abused hundreds of 

individuals under the guise of performing medical examinations. The allegations did not become 

public until 2018, following Ohio State’s commissioning of an independent investigation 

undertaken by the law firm Perkins Coie, which substantiated the allegations of abuse. After the 

allegations became public, survivors of this abuse—including Plaintiff in this case—brought Title 

IX suits against Ohio State, alleging that Ohio State was deliberately indifferent to their heightened 

risk of abuse and that Ohio State actually concealed the abuse. The district court found that 

Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the action. Plaintiff timely 

appealed.
No. 21-4116, John Doe 195 v. The Ohio State University

- 2 -

Around the same time that the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, the district court 

also dismissed claims brought by other alleged survivors of Strauss’ abuse. See Garrett v. Ohio 

State Univ., 561 F. Supp. 3d 747 (S.D. Ohio 2021); Ratliff v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:19-cv-4746, 

2021 WL 7186198 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021); Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:18-cv-736, 

2021 WL 7186148 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2021); Moxley v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:21-cv-3838, 

2021 WL 7186269 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2021). The district court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claims 

were barred by the statute of limitations because the abuse happened more than two years ago, and 

the plaintiffs knew or had reason to know that they were injured at the time that the abuse occurred. 

See Garrett, 561 F. Supp. 3d at 754–62; Snyder-Hill, 2021 WL 7186148, at *1; Moxley, 2021 WL 

7186269, at *1. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in this case for the same reasons.

While Plaintiff’s appeal in this case was pending, this Court decided an appeal involving 

the lawsuits Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State University, No. 2:18-cv-736 (S.D. Ohio) and Moxley v. Ohio 

State University, No. 2:21-cv-3838 (S.D. Ohio). In Snyder-Hill, et al. v. Ohio State University, 48 

F.4th 686 (6th Cir. 2022), this Court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that they did not 

know, and could not have reasonably known, that they were injured by Ohio State until 2018. 

Accordingly, this Court held that the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims against Ohio State did not accrue 

until 2018, and that the claims therefore were not barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Id.

at 690, 705–06.

On review of Plaintiff’s claims in this case, we conclude that the district court’s judgment 

should be vacated and the action remanded so that the district court may consider in the first 

instance whether the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s claims in light of this Court’s decision 

in Snyder-Hill. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint 

and REMAND the matter for reconsideration in light of Snyder-Hill.
No. 21-4116, John Doe 195 v. The Ohio State University

- 3 -

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

____________________________________

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk