California OAH special education order · February 5, 2024
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2024010630 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its 122 paragraphs of facts never set out specific issues, time periods, IEPs, placements, or services in dispute against Fresno or Clovis.
This case went to decision
Student v. Clovis Unified School District: Clovis Unified must fund $47,610 in compensatory education for inadequate behavior support and ended speech services; other claims denied. (2024)
Summary
Clovis Unified filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint against Fresno Unified and Clovis Unified. The complaint listed 122 paragraphs of facts, incorporated them by reference into one general IDEA issue, and said Student was deliberately not alleging any specific procedural or substantive denial of FAPE. OAH ruled that, even under liberal pleading standards, failing to identify the time period, IEPs, placements, and services in dispute made the complaint insufficient. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint that sets out the specific issues, all dates were vacated, and the complaint will be dismissed if no timely amendment is filed.
Why it matters
A long list of facts is not enough. A due process complaint must name the specific issues, time periods, IEPs, placements, or services in dispute so each district knows what it must defend. A deliberately vague complaint can delay the case or lead to dismissal.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 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.
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CLOVIS UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024010630
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
FEBRUARY 5, 2024
On January 19, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Fresno Unified School District and Clovis Unified School District. On February 2, 2024, Clovis Unified filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. An amended Notice of Insufficiency was filed on February 5, 2024.
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 one general issue that requests relief under the IDEA.
Specifically, Student’s complaint lists 122 paragraphs of facts and then seeks to incorporate by reference the above paragraphs without delineating the specific issues to be litigated. Moreover, Student’s complaint states he is deliberately not alleging any specific procedural or substantive denial of FAPE alleged against either Fresno or Clovis.
Even considering the liberal pleading requirements of the IDEA, Student’s failure to specify the time period, the IEPs, the placements, the services in dispute are fatal to the complaint’s sufficiency.
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), delineate the specific issues to be litigated, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings