California OAH special education order · January 27, 2015
Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015010629 · ALJ Richard T. Breen
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the time period, the IEP at issue, whether the claims concerned assistive technology or the IEP process, or any proposed resolution.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint made many factual allegations about assistive technology, curriculum, IEP meetings, school staff's perceptions, and a possible compliance complaint. OAH found it insufficient because it did not say what time period or IEP was at issue, whether Student was raising assistive technology or IEP-process claims, or what resolution Student wanted. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Listing many facts is not enough. A complaint must clearly state each problem, the time period and IEP involved, and the remedy sought. Parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a mediator to help them frame issues and proposed resolutions.
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)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2015010629
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On January 15, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Los Angeles Unified School District (District) as the respondent. On January 23, 2015, the District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint, alleging that the complaint did not provide District with sufficient notice of the issues.
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 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).
named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 4 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 IDEA 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
Here, the complaint makes numerous factual allegations about assistive technology, student’s curriculum, events at IEP meetings, perceptions of school personnel, and allegations that a compliance complaint may be filed.
Student’s complaint is insufficient in that it fails to provide District with the required notice of a description of the problem and the facts relating to the problem. Specifically, it cannot be determined what time period or IEP Student is referring to, whether Student is alleging an issue related to assistive technology, or whether Student is alleging issues related to the IEP process.
A complaint is also 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).)
Here, it cannot be determined what, if any, resolution Student is proposing. Although the complaint references the legal standard for procedural problems in the IEP development process, no specific resolution could be determined from the face of the complaint.
4 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
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).
In sum, it could not be determined from the face of the complaint what the exact problem was with the provision of special education and what the proposed resolution is. A parent who is not represented by an attorney may request that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. 8 Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
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). 9
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: January 27, 2015
/S/
RICHARD T. BREEN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 8 Ed. Code, § 56505.
9 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
