Birmingham by Birmingham v. Omaha School Dist.
| Decision Date | 14 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 98-3030.,Civ. 98-3030. |
| Parties | Brenda Deann BIRMINGHAM, by her Guardian, Rose BIRMINGHAM, Plaintiffs, v. The OMAHA SCHOOL DISTRICT; David Land, Superintendent of the Omaha School District; Randy J. Centers, Principal of the Omaha School District; Larry Gilbert; Larry Matlock; Lanny Fausett; Pam Gass; David Arnold; Bill Curtis; Mike Fulton, as Current or Former Members of the Omaha School Board; James Strain, Omaha High School Special Education Teacher; Bill Gregg; Boone County Independent Living Center, Inc.; Lee Fraiser, Director, Arkansas Department of Human Services; Sue Habermehl, Jointly and Severally, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Christopher O'Hara Carter, Flippin, AR, for Brenda Deann Birmingham by Rose Birmingham.
W. Paul Blume, Little Rock, AR, for Omaha School Dist., Randy J. Centers, Larry Gilbert, Larry Matlock, Lanny Fuefett, Pam Gass, David Arnold, Bill Curtis, Mike Fulton, James Strain.
Frank Alan GoBell, Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, Little Rock, AR, for Lee Fraiser, Sue Habermehl.
Plaintiffs filed this complaint pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400-1485 (1990).1 Defendants Lee Fraiser, former Director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services ("ADHS") and Sue Habermehl, Consultant of the Adult Protective Services Division of the ADHS, move to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint as time barred.
Plaintiff Brenda Deann Birmingham is mentally handicapped and suffers from cerebral palsy. From 1984 until her high school graduation in May, 1995, Brenda attended school in the Omaha School District in Omaha, Arkansas, and received special education services as a disabled student.
On May 3, 1994, Omaha High School ("Omaha") developed an "individual educational plan" ("IEP") for Brenda.2 The IEP established that Brenda would be classified as a junior for the upcoming 1994-95 school year, and would graduate from Omaha in May, 1996.
Plaintiff Rose3 Birmingham, Brenda's mother, asserts that on Friday, April 28, 1995, Brenda did not return home from school because James Strain, a special education teacher at Omaha, convinced Brenda to move out from her mother's home and into Boone County Independent Living, Inc. ("Independent Living"). Rose contends that Strain and/or other Omaha Public School officials contacted Sue Habermehl, at ADHS, and that Habermehl took Brenda into voluntary protective custody pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-28-101.4
A petition was subsequently filed by the ADHS in Boone County Probate Court on May 1, 1995, and, after a hearing was held on May 15, 1995, the court permitted Brenda to voluntarily place herself into the protective custody of the ADHS and to enroll in Independent Living. Thus, the ADHS was granted temporary protective custody over Brenda pending a hearing on long-term protective custody.
Rose contends that as soon as she was removed as Brenda's de facto guardian, the Omaha School District conspired with the ADHS to graduate Brenda one year early by changing her classification from a junior to a senior. Rose asserts that the motive behind the decision to graduate Brenda early was to prevent additional federal funds from being spent on Brenda's education.
Rose contends that she requested to attend an IEP meeting that was scheduled for Brenda on May 10, 1995, however, she was informed that the IEP meeting had been canceled due to the decision to graduate Brenda one year early. Rose further contends that she was denied access to Brenda's records by officials with the Omaha School District. Rose asserts that she sent a letter to David Land, Superintendent of the Omaha School District, requesting a hearing before the school board to address Brenda's right to a free appropriate public education under the IDEA, but that the request was denied. Brenda subsequently graduated from Omaha.
Brenda returned home on July 7, 1995, and upon examination by a doctor, was diagnosed with Trichomonas, which is usually transferred by sexual contact. Rose contends that Brenda contracted Trichomonas through sexual abuse she suffered while a resident at Independent Living.
In August of 1995, Rose requested that the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") investigate her complaint that Brenda was denied her right to a free appropriate public education under the IDEA. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit "3." An initial report was issued by the ADE on November 17, 1995, however, the United States Department of Education determined that the ADE closed its investigation without addressing all of the issues, and, thus, remanded the complaint to the ADE. The ADE subsequently revisited plaintiffs' complaint and issued a final report on November 15, 1996, which concluded that Brenda's right to a free appropriate public education was not violated when Omaha graduated her in 1995 instead of in 1996. Id.
Rose brings this action under the IDEA against defendants for conspiracy to deprive Brenda of her right to a free appropriate public education. Plaintiffs also assert that defendants deprived Brenda of her right to free association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and deprived her of her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs are seeking damages and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The IDEA was enacted to address congressional findings that the special education needs of children with disabilities were not being fully met in the United States. See generally 3 Americans with Disabilities Practice and Compliance Manual, § 11:1 at 8 (1992). Although originally designated the Education of the Handicapped Act (the "EHA"), the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990 officially renamed the statute as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
It is unnecessary for the court to explain the structure of the IDEA in great detail. Numerous cases on the IDEA and its forerunner, the EHA, perform that function. See, e.g., Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988). For purposes of the present action, it is only necessary to note that the IDEA requires the states, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to provide all disabled students in their jurisdiction with a "free appropriate public education" as defined by the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(18) (1990).
If the student's parents or legal guardian are unhappy with the education being provided to their child, the IDEA requires the states to provide them with an opportunity "to examine all relevant records with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child" and "to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child" to determine whether their child is entitled to special education. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(A) (1990). The IDEA also provides the parents or guardian with "an opportunity to present complaints with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(E) (1990). Whenever such a complaint has been received, the IDEA ensures that "the parents or guardian shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing...." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2) (1990). The IDEA also spells out the minimum due process protections to be provided at this hearing.
Rose did not receive an "impartial due process hearing," although she contends in her complaint that one was requested. Rose did request that the ADE investigate her complaint and, as stated above, the ADE determined that Brenda's right to a free appropriate public education was not violated by defendants.
Under the IDEA, any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered by a state educational agency "shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented ... in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) (1990). The IDEA further provides that "[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a handicapped child or youth who is the prevailing party." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (1990). Plaintiffs are asserting causes of action under both § 1415(e)(2) and § 1415(e)(4)(B).
We now turn to the issue of whether those claims are barred by the statute of limitations. This issue is one of first impression for the court and has not been addressed, at least in a published opinion, by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
The IDEA does not set a time limit for actions brought under its provisions. When a federal statute does not contain a limitations period, "courts must select `the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations.'" Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 617 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 2620, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987)). "While this practice has been called at best uncertain and at worst arbitrary, the settled practice has [nevertheless] been to adopt a local time limitation as federal law if it is not inconsistent with federal law or policy to do so." Powers v. Indiana Dept. of Educ., Div. of Special Educ., 61 F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Defendants urge the court to adopt the "short" limitations period found in the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, under Arkansas law, any person who suffers an adverse decision by a state agency is entitled to judicial review of that agency's final decision,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O, v. Bentonville Sch. Dist.
...period of limitations applies to claims under the IDEA was first addressed by an Arkansas court in the case of Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 17 F. Supp. 2d 859 (W.D. Ark. 1998). In that case, the defendant challenged a decision by a hearing officer concluding that the school district had ......