Malone v. Nielson

Decision Date22 January 2007
Docket NumberNo. 05-4112.,05-4112.
PartiesAnthony MALONE and Barbara Sims-Malone, on behalf of Anthony Delance Malone, deceased son, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert NIELSON, Superintendent, Bloomington Public Schools, District No. 87, individually and in his official capacity, Becky Francois, Director of Special Education, Bloomington Public Schools, District No. 87, individually and in her official capacity, Cindy Helmers, High School Principal, Bloomington Public Schools, District No. 87, individually and in her official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Anthony Malone (submitted), Bloomington, IL, pro se.

Barbara Sims-Malone, Bloomington, IL, pro se.

Darcy L. Proctor, Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, Dicianni & Rolek, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before COFFEY, RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Malone and Barbara Sims-Malone brought this action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Illinois State Board of Education and various administrators and teachers employed by the Board of Education of the Bloomington Public Schools, District No. 87 ("District"), violated their son's right to a free and appropriate public education under the IDEA. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss because the Malones failed to state a claim under either the IDEA or § 1983. The Malones appeal that decision.

I

Given the procedural posture of the case, we draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the Malones, and our review of the dismissal is de novo. See Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527, 529 (7th Cir.2006).

From 1999 through his graduation in 2003, Anthony DeLance "Lance" Malone attended high school in the Bloomington Public Schools District No. 87 in Bloomington, Illinois. Before high school, Lance had been diagnosed with specific learning disabilities as defined in 105 ILCS 5/14-1.03a, and was qualified as a child with a disability within the meaning of 105 ILCS 5/14-1.02 and 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). Accordingly, while enrolled in high school, he was entitled to receive special educational services through an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") developed by the District in consultation with his parents. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d).

The Malones claim that, beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the District ignored or flouted many provisions of Lance's IEP and the procedural safeguards of the IDEA. According to the Malones, the defendants deprived Lance of instruction by removing him from one of his classes for a three-week period and placing him in detention for that class period, by suspending him for thirty-one days in a single year, by refusing to let him make up missed work and by refusing to modify tests and assignments and to provide one-on-one help in accordance with his IEP. On one occasion, Lance was barred from the cafeteria for three weeks and placed in detention during his lunch period; in detention, he was given a cold sandwich and water instead of a cafeteria meal. The defendants, moreover, failed to notify the Malones about these disciplinary actions or to review the IEP to develop a behavior intervention plan. The Malones also allege that the defendants isolated Lance from other students by placing his desk in a corner, excluding him from group assignments, enforcing campus rules that were relaxed for others and "interfering" with his ability to participate in extra-curricular activities such as basketball. Finally, the Malones allege that the defendants made hurtful comments to Lance, such as telling him that none of his teachers wanted him in their classes because he smelled.

Beginning in March 2000, the Malones wrote a number of letters to District officers protesting this treatment, and, in October 2000, they were granted a hearing before an Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO") licensed by the state. At around the same time, the Malones took Lance to a psychologist who diagnosed him with anxiety and depression. The Malones claim that the IHO ordered the District to pay for counseling for Lance, but no order ever was issued.

None of the parties offer any explanation as to what happened to derail the proceedings. The next thing we know is that, in January 2002, a new IHO was appointed to handle Lance's case, and the Malones asked for another hearing. The parties met for a prehearing conference in March, and Lance began twice-monthly sessions with the psychologist. After that, a series of postponements initiated by both sides delayed the hearing, which never did occur.

Lance turned 18 in September 2002; he graduated from the high school the following June, and then, in August 2003, he died.1 The defendants moved the IHO to dismiss the case in October 2003. After allowing the Malones a chance to respond, the IHO granted the motion. The IHO reasoned that he was empowered to order only prospective relief, and he could not make factual findings in the absence of the power to grant relief.

The Malones then turned to the district court, claiming a right of action on behalf of Lance's estate. They seek reimbursement under the IDEA for expenses Lance incurred for psychological counseling, for "medical services" and for transportation to and from his psychological and medical appointments, see R.60 at 9-10; they also seek to recover attorneys' fees and costs. Additionally, the Malones claim that Lance is entitled under § 1983 to "compensatory damages," damages for "emotional distress," punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, id. at 19.

The district court dismissed the Malones' complaint. It held that the Malones had failed to state a claim because the IDEA does not provide for money damages. The court acknowledged that the Malones seek "reimbursement" rather than "damages" but concluded there is no distinction in this case "because there is nothing in the Complaint to show that Defendants were obligated under the agreed-upon IEP to provide Lance with counseling services." R.86 at 7-8. The court also held that the Malones fail to state a claim under § 1983 because, in its view, a plaintiff cannot "achieve any relief under Section 1983, based solely on an underlying violation of the IDEA." Id. at 13.

II

Before turning to the merits of the IDEA and § 1983 claims, we must address the threshold issue of whether the Malones may continue to litigate this action. The Malones brought this action "on behalf of Anthony DeLance Malone, deceased, by and through their attorney...." R.60 at 3. However, the Malones are no longer represented by counsel, but are proceeding pro se in this appeal. Although...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Swanson v. Citibank, 10-1122.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 d5 Julho d5 2010
    ......See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir.2007). We have therefore dismissed Routen as a party on ......
  • Stanek v. St. Charles Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist., 14–3012.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 9 d4 Abril d4 2015
    ......Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 121 S.Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63 (2001) ); see also Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934 (7th Cir.2007) (lead defendant is superintendent in official capacity, and ......
  • Wilbur v. Tunnell
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 10 d5 Julho d5 2020
    ......See Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2007) ; 151 N.E.3d 914 Jones v. Correctional Med. Servs., ......
  • Bey v. Colon
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 10 d3 Julho d3 2019
    ......2004)(unpublished per curiam); Shepard v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002); Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2007); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2nd Cir. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT