California OAH special education order · May 24, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018050756 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its claims, including failure to assess and failure to implement, lacked dates, specifics, and clear facts, and its proposed remedies were undefined; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
Natomas Unified School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint mentioned failures to assess, implement, provide transportation, hold an IEP meeting, and provide an appropriate placement. OAH found it did not say when or how these failures happened, which areas of need should have been assessed, or which IEP goals, accommodations, or services were not provided. Its requested remedies, document review and unspecified "bridge/transition services," were also too vague. OAH allowed an amended complaint within 14 days, warned that the case would be dismissed if none is filed, vacated all dates, and encouraged Parent to ask OAH for a mediator's help.
Why it matters
A complaint that lists types of violations is not enough: each claim needs dates, the specific IEP or area of need involved, and a clearly described remedy. Parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a mediator to help write 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
- 71 Fed. Reg. 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. 2018050756 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On May 15, 2018, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Natomas Unified School District. On May 23, 2018, 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. (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.)
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 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).
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 mentions alleged failures to assess and implement, provide transportation, convene an IEP team meeting, and place Student in an appropriate educational setting, among other alleged violations. However, Student’s complaint does not contain a clear description of the problems, and the facts that describe the problems. For example, Student alleges District failed to assess, but the complaint does not describe when and how District failed to assess Student and does not explain what area of need District should have assessed her for and why. Likewise, Student’s complaint alleges a failure to implement, but does not describe when the failure occurred and what aspect of Student’s individualized education program was not implemented. The complaint does not identify a specific IEP or describe the goal, accommodation, or service that the IEP called for that District allegedly failed to provide.
The issues raised by Student in her complaint are not pled and organized clearly enough to provide District with an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint and as a result, it does not provide District with sufficient information to adequately prepare for the hearing and to participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is insufficient.
As a remedy, Student requests to review documents and compensation to include “bridge/transition services.” 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).) The proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint is not well- defined, as it fails to describe the documents to be reviewed or the type of compensation being sought.
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.) Parent is 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. 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 24, 2018
ROMMEL P. CRUZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.