California OAH special education order · October 19, 2015
Order Granting District's Motion for Partial Dismissal of Student's Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015100209 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, Section 1983, and related state-law claims because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them; the IDEA claims will proceed to hearing as scheduled.
This case went to decision
Student v. Capistrano Unified School District: Capistrano Unified denied FAPE by delaying an eye-tracking communication device; must fund 21 hours of training and an assessment. (2016)
Summary
Capistrano Unified School District asked OAH to dismiss the parts of Student's due process complaint alleging violations of Section 504, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and related state educational laws. Student did not file an opposition. The ALJ granted the unopposed motion because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters about identification, evaluation, placement, and the provision of a free appropriate public education. It does not extend to Section 504 or Section 1983 claims. The remaining issues will go forward as scheduled.
Why it matters
Families can bring only IDEA-related claims in OAH due process. Section 504, civil rights, and similar claims, and the remedies tied to them, must be pursued in another forum.
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
- 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
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. 2015100209 v. ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL OF STUDENT’S COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 29, 2015, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing, naming Capistrano Unified School District.
On October 12, 2015, District filed a Motion to Dismiss those portions of Student’s complaint alleging claims of violation of Section 504, Section 1983, and related state educational laws and statutes.
Student has not filed an opposition to District’s Motion to Dismiss.
APPLICABLE LAW
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et.
seq.) is to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education”, 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.)
OAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) or Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code.
DISCUSSION
Student alleges that for the entire statute of limitations period of her complaint, District violated IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the civil rights act under 42 U.S.C., section 1983, related state educational laws and statutes, and denied Student a free appropriate public education. Student further seeks remedies based upon her allegations of non-IDEA claims.
As stated above, OAH does not have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) or Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code. Therefore, District’s Motion to Dismiss those portions of Student’s complaint which allege or reference claims of violations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the civil rights act under 42 U.S.C., section 1983, and related state educational laws and statutes is dismissed.
ORDER
District’s Motion to Dismiss is granted as to those portions of Student’s complaint which allege or reference claims of violations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the civil rights act under 42 U.S.C., section 1983, and related state educational laws and statutes.
The matter will proceed as scheduled as to the remaining issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 19, 2015
/ S/
JUDITH PASEWARK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings