California OAH special education order · April 18, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040232 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Placer County SELPA because it alleged no facts showing SELPA was responsible for Student's FAPE or violated special education law, and allowed 14 days to amend.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District and Placer County SELPA, and SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency. OAH found all 26 claims against SELPA insufficiently pled. The complaint gave no facts showing SELPA was responsible for providing Student a FAPE or that SELPA violated the IDEA or California law, so SELPA could not tell how to prepare for hearing, resolution, or mediation. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days. If Student does not, SELPA will be dismissed and the case will proceed against the District only.
Why it matters
When a complaint names a SELPA or other agency besides the district, it must include specific facts showing that agency was responsible for the student's education and what it did wrong. Otherwise the agency can be dropped from the case.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
PLACER COUNTY SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN AREA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040232
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
APRIL 18, 2022
On April 1, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District and Placer County Special Education Local Plan Area, called SELPA. On April 14, 2022, SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the 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 complaint alleges 26 insufficiently pled claims against SELPA. The complaint provides no facts to establish that SELPA was responsible for providing a free appropriate public education to Student, called FAPE, or facts that SELPA violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or California special education laws. The complaint fails to provide SELPA with an understanding of the claims being asserted against it that would allow SELPA to prepare for the hearing, resolution session, or mediation.
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS: A parent without 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 as to Placer County SELPA 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 against Placer County SELPA, the SELPA will be dismissed as a party, and the complaint will proceed against Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District only.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings