California OAH special education order · March 14, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014030193 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged only a lack of academic progress, without facts on why Student has a specific learning disability or when District became responsible.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint, which raised three issues claiming Student did not make adequate progress because of a specific learning disability. OAH found the complaint insufficient. It did not say whether District should have assessed Student and found her eligible, and if so when, or, if she was already eligible, that District failed to assess and serve this area of need. It also gave no facts beyond lack of academic progress for why Student has a specific learning disability. The proposed resolutions (compensatory education, assessment, and an appropriate program) were adequate, and Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal.
Why it matters
A complaint about a suspected learning disability must do more than say the child is not making progress. It should state why a disability is suspected, when the district should have acted, and whether the child was already eligible.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
Topics
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. 2014030193
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On March 3, 2014, Student, through her advocate, filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) naming the Oxnard Unified School District (District). On March 13, 2014, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 2 The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
A complaint is sufficient if it contains: (1) a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed initiation or change concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child; (2) facts relating to the problem; and (3) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. 3 These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 4 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
4 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 5 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 6 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 7
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint contains three issues for hearing, all of which allege that Student failed to make adequate educational progress due to a specific learning disability. However, Student fails to allege sufficient facts in her complaint as the allegations do not allege that District should have assessed her and found her eligible for special education services, and if so when, or if she was already eligible for special education services, that District failed to assess and serve this area of suspected disability. Additionally, the complaint does not allege sufficient facts why Student believes she has a specific learning disability, beyond failure to make academic progress. Therefore, Student has failed to allege sufficient facts to put District on notice as to the issues for hearing because District does not know when it purportedly became responsible for Student’s education, why Student contends she has a specific learning disability, and how it denied Student a FAPE.
Student’s proposed resolutions are that District provide compensatory education services and assess Student and develop an appropriate educational program. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
5 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
6 Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, No. 06-cv-0215-JL)
2009 WL 2957991 at p.3 [nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F. Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd.
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, No. 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 at p. 3[nonpub.
opn.] ; but cf. M.S.-G. v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, at p. 3[nonpub. opn.].
7 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006).
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II). 8
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 United
States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
DATE: March 14, 2014 /s/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 8 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.