California OAH special education order · January 30, 2013

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues 4, 5, and 6

OAH Case No. 2013010255 · ALJ Deborah Myers-Cregar

OAH dismissed three of Student's claims because they did not involve special education under the IDEA. The claims concerned parent notice of an arrest, a suspension without a hearing, and release of records to the sheriff.

Granted Motions to dismiss

This case went to decision

Student v. Temecula Valley Unified School District: ALJ reverses Temecula Valley Unified's manifestation determination and orders the District to reinstate a student with autism facing expulsion. (2013)

Summary

District moved to dismiss Issues 4, 5, and 6 of Student's due process complaint as outside OAH's jurisdiction, and Student did not respond. The dismissed claims alleged that District failed to notify Parent of Student's arrest and detention, suspended Student for three days without a chance to be heard, and gave the sheriff's department Student's personal information. OAH granted the motion because none of these issues alleged an IDEA violation or concerned identification, evaluation, placement, provision of a FAPE, or manifestation determination rules. The case will go forward on the remaining issues as scheduled.

Why it matters

OAH can only hear claims tied to special education, such as identification, evaluation, placement, FAPE, or manifestation determinations. Constitutional, student-discipline due process, and records-privacy claims must be framed as IDEA violations or brought in another forum. Not opposing a motion to dismiss can also mean losing claims without a fight.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
  • Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
  • Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
  • Ed. Code, § 48900
  • Ed. Code, § 49073
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1232g

Topics

jurisdiction motion to dismiss constitutional claims suspension student records ferpa law enforcement

Full text of the order

Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013010255

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS ISSUES 4, 5, AND 6

TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On January 8, 2012, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint), naming Temecula Valley Unified School District (District) as the respondent.

On January 15, 2013, District filed a Motion to Dismiss Issues 4, 5, and 6, alleging that those issues do not fall within OAH’s jurisdiction and are not related to special education law. Student did not file a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

APPLICABLE LAW

The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education” (FAPE), and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a) [party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child; the provision of a FAPE to a child; the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child;

or a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility].) The jurisdiction of OAH is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)

In Issue 4, Student alleges that District violated an unidentified Education Code section by failing to timely and appropriately notify Student’s parents of his arrest, transportation to a hospital, and to a juvenile detention center. Student alleges this placed him in physical and emotional harm, and violated his constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination.

Issue 4 does not allege a violation of the IDEA and does not relate to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or the provision of FAPE. Issue 4 does not allege a violation of manifestation determination provisions under special education law.

Thus, OAH does not have jurisdiction over this issue.

In Issue 5, Student alleges that District violated Student’s constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it suspended him for three days without providing him with an opportunity to be heard.

Issue 5 purportedly alleges a violation of Education Code section 48900 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Issue 5 does not allege a violation of the IDEA and does not relate to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or the provision of FAPE. Issue 5 does not allege a violation of manifestation determination provisions under special education law. Thus, OAH does not have jurisdiction over this issue.

In Issue 6, Student alleges that District violated an unidentified Education Code section by providing the sheriff’s department with Student’s personal information, profile, grades and classes, which enabled the sheriff’s to conduct a sting operation. Student also alleges a violation of the California constitution.

Issue 6 purportedly alleges a violation of Education Code section 49073 relating to the release of Student information, and a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232 (g).) Issue 6 does not allege a violation of the IDEA and does not relate to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or the provision of FAPE. Issue 6 does not allege a violation of manifestation determination provisions under special education law. Thus, OAH does not have jurisdiction over this issue.

ORDER

District’s Motion to Dismiss as to Issues 4, 5 and 6 is granted. The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues.

Dated: January 30, 2013 /s/

DEBORAH MYERS-CREGAR

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings