California OAH special education order · May 8, 2014

Notice of No Action Taken; Order Regarding Filing of Documents

OAH Case No. 2014030365 · ALJ Bob N. Varma

OAH took no action on Parent's wish to advance hearing dates because it appeared only in emails to the District, not in a request to OAH, and told Parent to stop filing third-party emails.

Ruling Other orders

This case went to decision

Student v. Sacramento City Unified School District: Sacramento City Unified did not deny FAPE; parent failed to prove she emailed a request for a follow-up IEP meeting. (2014)

Summary

Parent filed sets of emails with OAH. One email exchange with Sacramento showed Parent wanted to move the hearing dates earlier, and Sacramento filed an opposition. OAH ruled that an email to a third party is not a motion, so it took no action on the dates. OAH also said Parent's later emails to a Megan Bailey were unclear, told Parent to stop filing emails sent to third parties, and directed her to file letters addressed to OAH that clearly state what she wants, served on Sacramento's counsel.

Why it matters

Self-represented parents must address requests directly to OAH and clearly state the action they want. OAH will not treat forwarded emails or messages to the district as motions. A short letter, even a handwritten one, is enough if it is directed to OAH and served on district counsel.

People named in the order

Megan Bailey, Recipient of Parent's emails (role not stated)

Topics

self-represented parent filing procedure hearing dates emails motion practice

Order details

OAH case number: 2014030365
Order date: May 8, 2014
Order type: Other orders
Ruling: No action taken; Parent instructed on proper filings
Administrative law judge: Bob N. Varma
Moving party: Parent
Case filed by: Student
Education agency: Sacramento City Unified School District
Student's counsel: Parent (self-represented)
District's counsel: Not stated
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

March 18, 2014: Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
April 3, 2014: Order Denying District's Notice of Insufficiency
April 10, 2014: Order Denying Student's Motion for Stay Put
April 17, 2014: Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
April 24, 2014: Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint and Deeming District's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Comp
April 28, 2014: Order Granting Peremptory Challenge
May 5, 2014: No action taken on Student's filings; Student ordered to serve all documents on District's attorney. (PDF)
May 8, 2014: Notice of No Action Taken; Order Regarding Filing of Documents
May 23, 2014: Order Following Prehearing Conference
Decision (2014-06-17)

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. 2014030365

v. NOTICE OF NO ACTION TAKEN;

ORDER REGARDING FILING OF

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DOCUMENTS

DISTRICT.

Notice of No Action Regarding Advancement of Dates On May 6, 2014, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a request for transcripts. The request was in the form of set of emails. Within the emails was an exchange between Parent and the Sacramento City Unified School District (Sacramento) wherein Parent expressed a desire to advance the hearing dates in this matter. On May 7, 2014, Sacramento filed an opposition to dates being advanced. Because Parent’s request was not directed at the Office of Administrative Hearings, OAH does not consider Parent’s email communication to a third party to constitute a motion upon which OAH must render a ruling. Accordingly, OAH will take no action regarding the resetting or advancement of the dates in this matter. 1 Filing of Documents with OAH Parent’s filing of May 6, 2014, asked OAH for transcripts. However, because it was a set of emails, it contained communications and information upon which OAH was not being asked to render a ruling. On May 7, 2014, Parent filed another email with OAH. The email was directed to a Megan Bailey and concerns a request for fax of documents. It goes on to state that Parent is requesting a findings of fact, conclusion of law and judgment. First, it is unclear if this is directed to OAH as a request or motion or if this is part of the conversation with Megan Bailey. Second, to the extent that this directed towards OAH, OAH has already ruled upon a similar request in an order dated May 5, 2014. On May 8, 2014, Parent filed another email to Megan Bailey which acknowledges that OAH has taken no action on the prior request for findings of fact, legal conclusions and judgment. It is unclear, what if anything Student is requesting of OAH with the May 8, 2014 filing.

Parent is instructed to stop filing emails directed to third parties, such as Megan Bailey. Parent is not required to file with OAH everything served upon Sacramento. Parent Student’s request for transcripts is being addressed separately.

is instructed to file documents that clearly set out any action she is requesting from OAH.

The document may be in the form of a letter and may be handwritten. However, it should be directed to OAH and clearly set out what action Parent requests OAH to take on any issue that concerns the proceedings in this matter. Any such filing with OAH should be served upon legal counsel for Sacramento.

Finally, Parent is encouraged to read “Guide to Understanding Due Process Hearings,” available at OAH’s website at http://www.dgs.ca.gov/oah/Home.aspx. Parent may also request a copy of the Guide from OAH by contacting the clerk assigned to this matter. The Guide may help Parent understand what is appropriate to file with OAH, how to make a motion, how to file it and what to expect in the proceedings in this matter.