Court Opinion

ID: 9408381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 17:00:53.593028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.565823
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-3236
                                       __________

                        DARCY LYNN SCHEYER, Individually,
                  and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
                                                                       Appellant

                                             v.

              LEHIGH UNIVERSITY; COMMUNITY VOICES CLINIC;
                   BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT;
                      ST. LUKE’S HEALTH NETWORK
                   ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00322)
                      District Judge: Honorable John M. Younge
                      ____________________________________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                    July 11, 2023
              Before: JORDAN, CHUNG, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed July 12, 2023)
                                      ___________

                                        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.
      Darcy Scheyer, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of

her complaint with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

      Scheyer filed suit against Lehigh University, Community Voices Clinic, and

Bethlehem Area School District, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities

Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and state common law. Dkt. No. 1. After the School District

filed a motion to dismiss, and the Clinic and Lehigh answered her complaint,1 Scheyer

filed an amended complaint and added St. Luke’s University Health Network as a

defendant. Dkt. No. 7. St. Luke’s and the School District then filed motions to dismiss,

and the Clinic and Lehigh again filed an answer, asserting affirmative defenses. Dkt.

Nos. 12, 13, 19. The District Court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed

Scheyer’s complaint as to all defendants with prejudice. Dkt. No. 26. Scheyer filed a

notice of appeal. Dkt. No. 27.

1
 The Clinic and Lehigh averred that they are not separate legal entities. Dkt. Nos. 6 &
12.

                                            2
       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.2 We apply de novo review to the

District Court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.3 Castleberry v.

STI Grp., 863 F.3d 259, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2017).

       To the extent Scheyer argues that the District Court erred in sua sponte dismissing

with prejudice her claims against non-moving defendants, the Clinic and Lehigh, we

disagree. In narrow circumstances, courts of appeals have upheld a district court’s

authority to sua sponte dismiss a complaint against a non-moving defendant where it is

clear the plaintiff cannot succeed, if the plaintiff has notice and an opportunity to respond

to the moving defendant’s relevant arguments. See Martinez-Rivera v. Sanchez Ramos,

498 F.3d 3, 7 (1st Cir. 2007); Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir.

1994); cf. Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 430 n.5 (3d Cir. 1990). We discern no

2
  Scheyer filed her notice of appeal on November 24, 2022, more than thirty days after
the District Court entered its dismissal order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However,
because the District Court’s seven-page order contained background, legal standards, and
the reasoning for its disposition, it did not comply with the separate judgment rule set
forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). See Witasick v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 803 F.3d 184,
187 (3d Cir. 2015). Thus, the District Court’s judgment was not deemed entered until
150 days after the order was entered on the docket, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B), and
Scheyer’s notice of appeal was timely filed. Despite Scheyer’s argument on appeal, C.A.
Dkt. No. 15 at 11, the District Court’s dismissal order was final and appealable under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, as it ended the litigation without leave to amend. Weber v. McGrogan,
939 F.3d 232, 236 (3d Cir. 2019). Thus, Appellees’ motions to dismiss the appeal for
lack of appellate jurisdiction are denied. See Docs. 4, 6, 9.
3
  We do not review issues Scheyer has not argued on appeal, such as the District Court’s
decision to grant the School District and St. Luke’s motions to dismiss. See Barna v. Bd.
of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 145-47 (3d Cir. 2017)
(explaining that an appellant’s failure to raise an argument constitutes forfeiture of that
argument). As to the arguments Scheyer did present, we recognize that her brief is
sparse. Regardless, we construe her pro se filings liberally and will review those
arguments. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
                                              3
error in the District Court’s conclusion that Scheyer failed to state sufficient facts to

support plausible claims against the non-moving defendants, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and that further amendment as to these claims would be futile, see

In re Burlington Coat Factory Secs. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). Nor do

we consider Scheyer to have been without notice of the non-moving defendants’

arguments or without opportunity to defend herself against them, as she filed an amended

complaint after their first answer, and two years passed between the motions to dismiss

and the District Court’s order. The District Court’s dismissal of the non-moving

defendants was appropriate in this particular circumstance.4

       Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

4
 Scheyer argues on appeal that the District Court erred in failing to act on her requests
for default judgment based on St. Luke’s failure to timely respond to her amended
complaint. Dkt. Nos. 20 & 24. However, we discern no abuse of discretion in the
District Court’s decision not to enter default judgment and instead to grant its motion to
dismiss on the merits, especially because St. Luke’s filed its motion to dismiss just nine
days after its time to respond lapsed. See Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164
(3d Cir. 2000).
                                               4