California OAH special education order · February 7, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2025010797 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint against Downey insufficient because it mixed claims across a declaration, gave no dates for the special education exit, and did not explain the GATE testing claim.
Summary
Downey filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH agreed, finding that it could not tell whether the claims were the three numbered issues or the extra allegations in an attached declaration. Student said Student was exited from special education and not reassessed but did not say when. Bullying claims were mixed with other allegations, and a 'GATE' testing claim was not defined or tied to special education. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
A complaint must clearly list each issue, give dates, and tie every claim to special education, so the district can prepare and take part in resolution. Parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a mediator to help them write the issues before refiling.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 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
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.
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025010797
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
FEBRUARY 7, 2025
On January 23, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Downey Unified School District. On February 5, 2025, Downey 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 contains insufficiently pled claims. It cannot be discerned whether the complaint relates to the three numbered issues, or to the series of additional allegations contained in an attached declaration. Student claims to have been exited from special education and then not assessed thereafter for renewed eligibility, but does not state when this occurred. Thus, the claims are not specific as to time. Various claims regarding bullying and other alleged inappropriate acts by Downey are mixed together. A claim is made with regard to “GATE” testing, but this is not defined, nor why that issue concerns Student’s special education or related services.
Student’s complaint fails to describe the issues in an understandable fashion, preventing the named party from being able to participate in resolution and prepare for hearing.
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 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.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings