California OAH special education order · May 3, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017040150 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH found Student's amended complaint against two districts insufficient on all four issues because it never said which district was responsible for which alleged violation; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
Student filed an amended complaint naming both Redlands and Beaumont Unified School Districts. It raised four issues about the February 13, 2017 IEP, including programming, services, the therapists' opinions on discharge from residential placement, and goals. Beaumont filed a notice of insufficiency. OAH found all four issues insufficiently pled because the complaint did not give either district adequate notice of the problem or the facts, and did not identify which district was responsible for which violation. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal, and all previously set dates were vacated.
Why it matters
When a complaint names more than one district, each claim must say which district did what. Lumping the agencies together as "the District" can get the whole complaint found insufficient and delay the hearing.
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 Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 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. 2017040150 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT AND BEAUMONT UNIFIDED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
On April 20, 2017, Parent on behalf of Student filed an amended Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Redlands Unified School District and Beaumont Unified School District as respondents. On May 1, 2017, Beaumont 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. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) 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. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) 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. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A).
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.) 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. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Bd. 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, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, 775 [nonpub. opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint alleges four claims in the complaint, which are all insufficiently pled as discussed below. The specific issues pled are as follows:
Issue No. 1: Given the Magnitude of Student’s well documented mental health issues coupled with the life threatening and dangerous nature of Student’s at risk behaviors, did the District’s refusal to provide appropriate programming and services during the February 13, 2017 IEP constitute a denial of FAPE? Issue No 2: When making the offer of FAPE during the February 13, 2017 IEP, did the District consider all opinions from the current therapists working with Student who unanimously stated that Student is not ready to discharge from her current residential program? Issue No. 3: Given Student’s significant mental health disorders and the manifestations thereof, is the current offer of FAPE contained in the February 13, 2017 IEP appropriate and designed to yield educational benefit? Issue No. 4: Are the goals outline in the February 13, 2017 IEP likely to confer educational benefit since they were designed and created for implementation in a residential setting while also lacking appropriate strategies to insure proper implementation.
Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled in that it fails to provide either District named with the required notice or adequate description of the problem and the facts relating to the problem. Student has failed to identify which district she alleges was responsible for which violations of the law. These deficiencies are found as to each of the issues stated.
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).2
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
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: May 3, 2017
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 2 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.