California OAH special education order · January 4, 2022
Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021120652 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it gave no coherent problem description or facts, named no school district, and did not explain why the SELPA was responsible for Student's education.
Summary
East San Gabriel Valley SELPA challenged the sufficiency of Student's amended due process complaint. OAH found that the one claim did not coherently describe a problem with Student's identification, evaluation, placement, or free appropriate public education (FAPE). It also found that the claim contained no supporting facts, named no school district, and did not explain why the SELPA was responsible for Student's program. Student may file a second amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
A complaint must name the right agency, usually the school district, and explain why that agency is responsible, along with specific facts about the problem. Parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a free mediator to help write the issues and proposed resolutions.
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:
STUDENT,
v.
EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY SELPA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021120652
ORDER DETERMINING INSUFFICIENCY OF
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
JANUARY 4, 2022
On January 3, 2022, Student filed an Amended Due Process Hearing Request, called an amended complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming East San Gabriel Valley Special Education Local Plan Area, called a SELPA.
On January 3, 2022, East San Gabriel Valley SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the amended complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.
(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: (1) describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education; (2) includes facts about the problem; and (3) includes a proposed resolution 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 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 amended complaint alleges one insufficiently pleaded claim. The amended complaint fails to coherently describe a problem relating to the proposed change regarding the Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education, and lacks any facts about the problem. The complaint does not name a school district and fails to describe why East San Gabriel Valley SELPA is responsible for Student’s educational program. The complaint fails to provide East San Gabriel Valley SELPA with the required problem description and the facts relating to the problem. The complaint is therefore insufficiently pleaded.
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS/STUDENTS: A
parent or adult student without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent/student in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Student was previously encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if he intends to amend his due process hearing request, and is again informed of the availability of free assistance.
ORDER
1. Student’s amended complaint is insufficiently pleaded under title 20 United
States Code section 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 second amended complaint, the amended
complaint will be dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Kara Hatfield Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings