California OAH special education order · November 3, 2017
Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017110013 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named the special education director instead of the District and did not identify a legal issue, supporting facts, or time frame.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's due process complaint. The complaint mistakenly named the District's special education director as the respondent. It complained that she attended IEP meetings only sporadically and asked repetitive questions, and that Student remained delayed despite years of interventions. OAH found the single claim insufficient because it did not identify a legal issue, describe the underlying facts, or state the school years involved; it gave Student 14 days to amend, and it denied District's separate motion to dismiss as moot.
Why it matters
A due process complaint must name the district, state each specific legal issue, give the supporting facts, and give the time frame. Frustration with staff or with a child's lack of progress is not enough on its own. Parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a mediator to help draft an amended complaint.
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
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
People named in the order
- Dr. Jan Hamilton, District special education director
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017110013 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SALINAS CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 30, 2017, Parents on Behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Salinas City Elementary School District. On November 2, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint.2
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).
2 On November 2, 2017, District filed a motion to dismiss Student’s complaint. In light of OAH’s order finding Student’s complaint insufficient, District’s motion to dismiss is moot and denied. District may resubmit a motion to dismiss if Student files an amended complaint.
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 one claim, which is insufficiently pled. Student mistakenly names District’s special education director Dr. Jan Hamilton as the respondent and complains that Dr. Hamilton sporadically attended individualized education program team meetings, during which she asked repetitious questions. Student also complains that Student continues to be delayed despite years of well-intentioned interventions and the recommendations of outside service providers. In sum, Student fails to sufficiently identify any legal issue giving rise to the complaint; adequately describe the underlying facts related to the issues, or; identify the school years or time frame during which the issues may have occurred.
For the foregoing reasons, Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled in that it fails to provide District with the required notice of a description of the problem and the facts relating to the problem.
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS: A parent who is not represented by an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) 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).3
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: November 3, 2017
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 3 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.