California OAH special education order · April 5, 2024
Order Denying Request to Determine Sufficiency of Expedited Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2024030247 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH denied Downey's sufficiency challenge to Student's expedited claim because issues subject to mandatory expedited hearing under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3) are exempt from sufficiency review.
Summary
Downey filed a notice of insufficiency against the expedited issue in Student's amended complaint. Issue 3 alleged that Downey held three manifestation determination meetings in the 2023-2024 school year, found Student's behaviors related to his disability, and still made no substantive changes to his behavioral supports. OAH had already found Issue 3 subject to the mandatory expedited hearing requirement. Because the expedited hearing provisions do not allow sufficiency challenges, OAH denied the request and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a sufficiency challenge to delay or block an expedited hearing on discipline-related claims, such as manifestation determinations. Parents' expedited claims proceed on the fast 20-school-day timeline.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024030247
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY
OF EXPEDITED DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
APRIL 5, 2024
On March 7, 2024, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Downey Unified School District, called Downey. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called
OAH.
On March 19, 2024, OAH issued an order granting Student’s motion to file an amended complaint. On March 21, 2024, based on the issues in the complaint, OAH issued a scheduling order setting dual hearing dates including expedited hearing, prehearing conference and mediation dates. On April 4, 2024, Downey filed a notice of insufficiency as to the expedited issues in 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).
Title 20 United States Code section 1415(k)(3) permits a party to request an expedited hearing for specific reasons. Specifically, an expedited hearing can be requested to appeal a disciplinary change of placement, such as placement in an alternative education setting or a manifestation determination regarding student conduct. This section requires an expedited hearing start within 20 school days from the hearing request. There is no provision for expedited hearings under section 1415(k) to test the complaint’s sufficiency.
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.)
Issue 3 in the amended complaint alleges Downey held three manifestation determination meetings during the 2023-2024 school year and found Student’s behaviors were related to his disability. The amended complaint further alleges despite this finding, Downy made no substantive changes to Student’s behavioral supports.
OAH determined Issue 3 subject to the mandatory expedited hearing requirement. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).) Therefore, Issue 3 is exempt from a determination of sufficiency.
ORDER
1. Downey’s request to determine the sufficiency of Student’s expedited
complaint is denied.
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings