California OAH special education order · October 11, 2013

Notice of No Action and Order to Stop Filing Documents

OAH Case No. 2013030530, 2013010162 · ALJ Judith A. Kopec

OAH took no action on Student's post-decision 'Notice to Proceed' and ordered Student to stop filing similar documents, because OAH lacks jurisdiction once it issues a decision and repeated filings waste resources.

Ruling Jurisdiction

This case went to decision

Torrance Unified School District v. Student: Torrance Unified may complete a triennial assessment without parental consent or parents present; FAPE obligation ends if student not presented. (2013)

This case went to decision

Torrance Unified School District v. Student: Torrance Unified may complete a triennial reassessment without parental consent, and parents may not be present in the testing room. (2013)

Summary

After OAH issued final decisions in two Torrance Unified cases, Student repeatedly filed documents, including an appeal notice, discrimination complaints, a complaint about the ALJ, and a 'Notice to Proceed.' OAH had already issued several notices of no action explaining that it has no jurisdiction after a decision and that Student's remedy is an appeal to court. OAH again took no action. Because processing these filings was an undue burden and a waste of administrative resources, OAH ordered Student to stop filing documents of the same or similar nature.

Why it matters

Once OAH issues a final decision, it cannot reconsider or correct the case. A family that disagrees must appeal to a court, and repeated filings at OAH can lead to an order barring further filings.

People named in the order

  • Carla Garrett, Administrative Law Judge (prior decision)
  • Judith A. Kopec, Division Presiding Administrative Law Judge

Topics

post-decision filings lack of jurisdiction right to appeal order to stop filing notice of no action

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 Matters of:

TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH CASE NO. 2013030530

DISTRICT,

v.

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT 1,

TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH CASE NO. 2013010162

DISTRICT,

v. NOTICE OF NO ACTION AND ORDER

TO STOP FILING DOCUMENTS

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT 2.

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued a decision in OAH Case No. 2013030530 on September 6, 2013. In this decision, Student was informed of the right to appeal the decision to a court. On September 9, 2013, Student filed a “Notice of Appeal and/or Request that the Judgment be Corrected or Cancelled.” On September 12, 2013, OAH issued a notice of no action and once again advised Student of his right to appeal to a court.

On March 11, 2013, OAH issued a decision in OAH Case No. 2013010162. On April 3, 2013, Student filed a “Notice of Discrimination and Violations under the ADA, 504 [sic], and Unruh Act.” On April 18, 2013, OAH issued a notice of no action which informed Student that once OAH closed the case, it no longer had jurisdiction to act. On July 30, 2013, Student filed two documents in this matter: “Complaint about a California Judge, Court Commissioner or Referee” and “Declaration of Disabled Minor Child with Autism and Notice of Complaint of Discrimination by OAH ALJ Carla Garrett on 3/11/2013.” While the second document was captioned, “Before the Commission of Judicial Performance for the State of California,” it purported to be directed to OAH along with the Office of Judicial Performance. On July 31, 2013, OAH issued a notice of no action that again informed Student that OAH has no jurisdiction once it issued a decision.

On October 9, 2013, Student filed a document captioned, “Notice to Proceed”

concerning both of these cases. The document is in the form of a letter directed to Torrance Unified School District. Once again, OAH will take no further action.

Student’s repetitive filings in these matters has required OAH to process the filings and to repeatedly issue notices of no action based on OAH’s lack of jurisdiction. Processing and responding to Student’s repeated, unmeritorious filings is an undue burden and a waste of administrative resources. Accordingly, Student is ordered to cease filing further documents that are of the same or similar nature to those that are the subject of OAH’s notices of no action in these two matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2013 /s/

JUDITH A. KOPEC

Division Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings