California OAH special education order · July 25, 2023
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2023070243 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain why Oakland Unified owed Student a FAPE in 2022-2023 after she graduated with a regular high school diploma in Spring 2022.
Summary
Oakland Unified filed a timely Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which alleged FAPE denials (Issues 1a through 1f) during the 2022-2023 school year. Student stated she graduated from Oakland Unified with a regular high school diploma in Spring 2022. A regular diploma ends special education eligibility, and OAH cannot invalidate a diploma once issued. The ALJ found the complaint unclear and lacking facts showing why the District still had to provide a FAPE after graduation, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal.
Why it matters
A student who graduates with a regular high school diploma is no longer eligible for special education. Any post-graduation claim must plead specific facts explaining why the district still owed services, or OAH will treat the complaint as insufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(i)
- Ed. Code, § 56026.1(a)
- 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,
v.
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023070243
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
JULY 25, 2023
On July 10, 2023, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Oakland Unified School District. On July 25, 2023, Oakland Unified filed a timely Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
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.)
The issues in Student’s complaint, identified as Issues 1a through 1f, are insufficiently pled. Student asserts she graduated from Oakland Unified in Spring 2022.
A student with a disability is no longer eligible for special education services and no longer entitled to a free appropriate public education, called a FAPE, once the student graduates from high school with a regular high school diploma. (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.102(a)(3)(i); Ed. Code, § 56026.1(a).) OAH does not have jurisdiction to invalidate a regular high school diploma after it has been issued to a student.
Here, Issues 1a through 1f contend Oakland Unified denied Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year. The complaint is unclear, confusing, and lacks sufficient information to provide Oakland Unified with an awareness and understanding as to how and why Oakland Unified was obligated to provide Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year, following her graduation with a regular high school diploma in Spring 2022. Accordingly, Student’s complaint is insufficient.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled 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 United
States Code 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.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings