California OAH special education order · October 29, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015100596 · ALJ Chris Butchko
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the time period, which IEPs were challenged, or whether the claim concerned implementation or IEP development of behavior supports.
Summary
Glendale Unified challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint. The complaint alleged that District failed to provide behavioral support services and a structured, individualized program, causing behavioral regression, school avoidance, and disciplinary incidents. OAH found the complaint insufficient because it did not say what time period or which IEPs were at issue, or whether Student was challenging implementation of behavior supports or the IEP development process. The proposed resolution, nonpublic school placement and related services, was adequate. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even under liberal pleading standards, a complaint should name the specific IEPs or time period it challenges. It should also say whether the problem is how the IEP was written or how it was carried out. Otherwise the case can be delayed by an amendment that restarts the hearing timelines.
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 § 56502
- 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. 2015100596 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 14, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Glendale Unified School District.
On October 26, 2015, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency 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 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
The single issue listed in Student’s complaint is that Student has been unable to access the curriculum and make academic progress because District has failed to provide him with behavioral support services and a structured and appropriately individualized educational program. As a consequence, student asserts that he has suffered the following harms: behavioral regression, school avoidance, and manifestations of his behavioral disability in disciplinary incidents.
District contends that that the complaint does not specify the dates of the IEP(s) at issue or how Student’s IEP was insufficiently individualized and structured. Although Student’s IEPs are within the District’s records, it cannot be determined from Student’s complaint what time period is at issue or which IEPs Student believes are defective. Further, it is unclear whether Student is alleging an issue related to the implementation of his behavior support or whether Student is alleging issues related to the IEP formulation process.
Therefore, Student has failed to state sufficient facts supporting this claim, and the claim is insufficient.
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).
Student’s proposed resolution requests placement at a non-public school and states that Student should be provided with all necessary related services and supports for his education. 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).)
Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to him at the time.
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: October 29, 2015
/S/
CHRIS BUTCHKO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 8 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.