California OAH special education order · March 1, 2018
Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying District's Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion to Unexpedite
OAH Case No. 2018021017 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH kept a self-represented Student's claim that the District knew of a suspected disability before expulsion, and denied the motion to unexpedite. It dismissed only the request to move the expulsion proceeding itself to OAH.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Dieguito Union High School District: San Dieguito Union High School District did not have to hold a manifestation determination before expelling a student who was not in special education. (2018)
Summary
San Dieguito asked OAH to dismiss three of Student's issues as outside OAH's jurisdiction because they involved general education expulsion proceedings. It also asked OAH to unexpedite two issues. OAH found that Student, who is not yet eligible for special education, alleged facts showing the District was on notice of a suspected disability. That claim to IDEA discipline protections is within OAH's jurisdiction and belongs in the expedited hearing. Only Student's request to move the expulsion proceeding to OAH was dismissed, because expulsion decisions belong to the superintendent, a designee, or the principal. The motion to unexpedite was denied because it had not been shown that the child find issue was part of the expedited hearing, and the issues will be sorted out at the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
A student not yet found eligible can still raise IDEA discipline protections in an expedited hearing by showing the district knew of a suspected disability, for example through an assessment request. However, OAH cannot take over or run the expulsion itself. Districts that skip a sufficiency challenge cannot later use a motion to dismiss as a substitute for summary judgment.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 48915
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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. 2018021017 v. ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
AND PARTIALLY DENYING
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
DISTRICT. AND DENYING MOTION TO
UNEXPEDITE
On February 24, 2018, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming San Dieguito Union High School District. On February 28, 2018, San Dieguito filed a Motion to Dismiss Issues One, Three and Four of Student’s Complaint and to Unexpedite Issues Two and Three. Student timely filed an opposition to the motions.
In its motion to dismiss, District asserts that issues one, three and four are outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) because they relate to expulsion proceedings and a non-disabled student’s general education services. District further alleges that issue two and three are inappropriate for an expedited hearing.
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.)
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc…..), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure.
DISCUSSION
Motion to Dismiss Here, District conflates Student’s proposed resolutions in the complaint with Student’s issues. San Dieguito did not file a notice of insufficiency in this matter, so the complaint is deemed sufficient by operation of law. Student is self-represented and the narrative complaint, although unartfully drafted, raises questions of fact that are not facially outside OAH’s jurisdiction. Specifically, student asserts he is a 10th grader at Canyon Crest Academy High School. He is not currently eligible for special education, but alleges that a request was made for a special education assessment to determine eligibility. Student specifically requests a stay of the expulsion proceedings as a proposed remedy. San Deguito correctly asserts OAH lacks jurisdiction over the general education expulsion process. However, Student alleges facts supporting a claim that he is entitled to the protections of the IDEA as San Deguito was on notice he was a child with a suspected disability. To the extent that the complaint raises this issue, it is within OAH’s jurisdiction and properly subject to the expedited hearing procedures.
Student’s request to change the expulsion proceeding to OAH for adjudication is outside OAH’s jurisdiction. Expulsion decisions are made by either the Superintendent of Schools for the District where student attends school, the Superintendent’s designate, or the Principal of the school Student attends. (Ed. Code §48915.) Thus, this issue is dismissed as outside OAH’s jurisdiction1.
Motion to Unexpedite San Dieguito requests what it defines as Student’s Issue No. 2, regarding “IEP assessment,” and that San Dieguito, “should have provided an IEP assessment consistent with the Child Find mandate,” be unexpedited. This matter was scheduled as a dual hearing because facts supporting both expedited and non-expedited issues were alleged in Student’s complaint.
Greater specificity regarding the issues will be addressed in Student’s prehearing conference statement and during the prehearing conference. San Dieguito’s motion to unexpedite Issue 2 is denied because it has not been established that this issue is part of the expedited due process hearing. The specific issues to be addressed in the expedited hearing process and those to be addressed in the non-expedited hearing process will be addressed during the prehearing conference in this matter.
ORDER
1. District’s motion to dismiss Student’s issues related to the disciplinary procedures
underlying his expulsion is DENIED.
1 This request is not interpreted as a motion for change of venue to OAH San Dieguito for the special education due process hearing.
2. District’s motion to dismiss Student’s request to remove the expulsion
proceedings to OAH for adjudication is GRANTED.
3. District motion to unexpedite what it defines as Student’s Issues Two and Three is
DENIED, subject to further issue clarification during the prehearing conference.
4. Student is ordered to identify by number in his prehearing conference statement
the issues raised in the complaint.
5. Nothing in this order precludes San Dieguito from renewing its motion to dismiss
issues listed in Student’s prehearing conference order based on lack of OAH’s jurisdiction.
The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the prehearing conference will determine which issues are expedited and non-expedited and include them in the Order following the prehearing conference.
DATE: March 1, 2018
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings