California OAH special education order · February 13, 2019
Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019020343 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its only issue, the IEP team's refusal to retain Student in 5th grade, lacked facts, a clear FAPE claim, and a proposed resolution; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
San Juan Unified challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised a single issue: the IEP team did not agree to retain Student in 5th grade. OAH found it unclear whether Student was challenging the right to a free appropriate public education, since the complaint said consent was given to all other parts of the IEP. It also found the complaint gave no proposed resolution. OAH granted the notice of insufficiency, gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint, and vacated all dates.
Why it matters
A complaint must describe the problem, give supporting facts, tie the dispute to the child's right to a free appropriate public education, and propose a fix. Parents without lawyers can ask OAH for a mediator to help them frame the issues and remedies before amending.
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
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. 2019020343 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On February 8, 2019 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Juan Unified School District. On February 13, 2019, San Juan Unified 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, 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).
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 only one issue in the complaint: the IEP team did not agree to retain Student in the 5th grade, which is insufficiently pled as discussed below.
Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled in that it fails to provide San Juan with the required notice of the problem and facts relating to the problem. It is unclear whether Student is challenging their right to a free appropriate public education. Student’s complaint indicates the disagreement is with Student’s grade placement for the 2019-2020 school year and that consent was provided for all other provisions of the IEP. Further, Student failed to provide San Juan with any proposed resolution to Student’s issue. Accordingly, San Juan’s request to determine Student’s complaint insufficient, is Granted.
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).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.
2 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
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: February 13, 2019
TIFFANY GILMARTIN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings