What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. KNOLL
No. 82-1889.
Argued January 14, 1985
Decided April 17, 1985
Charles Potash argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Harris F. Goldich.
Robert H. Chanin argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Michael H. Gottesman, Robert M. Weinberg, and Jeremiah A. Collins.
A brief for the State of Pennsylvania et al. as amici curiae urging reversal was filed by LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Andrew S. Gordon and Allen C. Wars haw, Senior Deputy Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General of their respective States as follows: Michael A. Lilly of Hawaii, Robert T. Stephan of Kansas, John D. Ashcroft of Missouri, Paul L. Douglas of Nebraska, Gregory H. Smith of New Hampshire, Rufus L. Edmisten of North Carolina, and Anthony Celebrezze of Ohio.
Per Curiam.
On April 21,1981, respondent commenced this action alleging, in part, that the petitioner School District discriminated against her on the basis of sex in failing to promote her to an administrative position. She sought equitable and compensatory relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for the alleged acts of discrimination which occurred in August 1979, May 1980, and September 1980.
The District Court dismissed the § 1983 claim because it was not brought within the 6-month limitations period which applies to
“[a]n action against any officer of any government unit for anything done in the execution of his office, except an action subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter.” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(1) (1982).
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the “application of the six-month limitations period would be inconsistent with the policies and legislative history underlying §1983” and that “the six-year residuary provision of the limitations scheme should govern this dispute.” 699 F. 2d 137, 139 (CA3 1983). We granted certiorari, 468 U. S. 1204 (1984), and heard argument.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is now vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of our decision in Wilson v. Garcia, ante, p. 261, in which we have held that all § 1983 claims should be characterized for statute of limitations purposes as actions to recover damages for injuries to the person.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 1