D.C. v. Klein Indep. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00021 |
| Parties | D.C., ET AL., Plaintiffs. v. KLEIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
On January 14, 2020, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Dkt. 35. On March 16, 2020, Judge Edison filed a Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 44) recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment Affirming the Hearing Officer and for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 16) be GRANTED as modified and Klein Independent School District's ("KISD") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) be DENIED.
On March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs and KISD each filed Objections. See Dkts. 45, 46. Plaintiffs and KISD then each responded to the other side's Objections. See Dkts. 47, 48. KISD eventually filed a reply in support of its Objections. See Dkt. 49. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Strike or Disregard Doc. 49 (KISD's reply). See Dkt. 50. As an initial matter, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike or Disregard Doc. 49 (Dkt. 50).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made." After conducting this de novo review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id.; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Objections, the responses and replies to those Objections, the pleadings, the briefing and arguments of the parties, and the entire record.
In its Objections, KISD complains that Judge Edison incorrectly applied a clear error standard of review of the hearing officer's findings of fact. See Dkt. 44 at 5 () (quotation omitted). KISD argues that Judge Edison should have reviewed the hearing officer's determination virtually de novo, ultimately reaching an independent decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. The Court agrees that Judge Edison incorrectly applied the clear error standard in several places. The Court also concurs with KISD concerning the general standard of review that should apply here. That being said, the Court believes that had Judge Edison applied the virtually de novo standard of review, his resolution of factual questions would not have been any different and he would have reached the same ultimate conclusions. Importantly, after the Court's de novo review of the record, it is the undersigned's independent decision, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment Affirming the Hearing Officer and for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 16) should be granted and Klein Independent School District's ("KISD") Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) should be denied. Becausethe Court finds the bulk of Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation to be well-reasoned and legally sound, the Court will adopt Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation as modified below. To be abundantly clear, my holding in this case is reflected in this document (Dkt. 52) and no other document.
The Court, therefore, ACCEPTS Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation as modified below and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2020.
/s/_________
GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs J.C. and K.C., as parents, guardians and next friends of D.C., a minor child (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed this lawsuit seeking to require Defendant Klein Independent School District ("KISD") to pay attorney's fees and reimburse certain costs after Plaintiffs received a favorable decision in an administrative hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Before me are competing motions: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment Affirming the Hearing Officer and for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 16); and KISD's Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered the motions, responsive briefing, record, and applicable law, I RECOMMEND that Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment Affirming the Hearing Officer and for Attorney's Fees (Dkt. 16) be GRANTED with the modifications discussed below and KISD's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) be DENIED.
When this lawsuit was filed, D.C. was an 11-year-old sixth grader enrolled at Hofius Intermediate School in KISD. To put the facts into proper perspective, I provide a brief history of D.C.'s elementary school education.
D.C. entered first grade at KISD's Metzler Elementary in the fall of 2013. D.C.'s first grade teacher placed him in the Tier 2 Response to Intervention ("RTI") program to work on his reading fluency. Tier 2 RTI consisted of the first-grade teacher working with a group of four or five students for 45 minutes per day outside of classroom instruction time.
In second grade, D.C. continued to receive Tier 2 RTI services. His grades in reading, writing, and math were all at least 80 in each grading period throughout the year. That being said, D.C. performed a full grade level below his peers on the KISD reading assessment.
D.C. remained in Tier 2 of the RTI program in third grade. Although he passed the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness Exam ("STAAR") exam in all areas, he struggled mightily with reading comprehension. In the spring of his third-grade year, D.C. was placed in a Section 504 plan1 for reading difficulty. The Section 504 plan documented that D.C. had a reading fluency level of kindergarten or below, but it did not include any direct instruction for D.C. in reading fluency or comprehension. In the fall ofD.C.'s third-grade year, his mother requested a Full Individual Evaluation ("FIE") to determine if D.C. qualified for special education and related services as a student with a specific learning disability.
In fourth grade, the 2016-2017 school year, D.C. encountered additional problems with fluency and reading comprehension. He did not meet any reading, writing, or science benchmark assessments on his standardized tests. His reading ability was so poor that he failed the STAAR exam and scored in the bottom two percentile on the reading portion of the Measure of Academic Proficiency exam. In contrast to his test scores, D.C. performed relatively well in his grade-level curriculum with all passing grades—79 in reading and all Bs in the remaining courses.
D.C. continued to struggle in the fifth grade, the 2017-2018 school year. Even so, KISD did not conduct a FIE until January 2018, the middle of D.C.'s fifth-grade year, and only after his parents requested an evaluation. The evaluation indicated that D.C.'s reading comprehension score placed him at just the eighth percentile level. D.C. was found eligible for special education as suffering from a specific learning disability in reading comprehension, with specific weaknesses in comprehension/knowledge, fluid reasoning, long term memory, and processing speed.
After several lengthy hearings with D.C.'s family, KISD implemented an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") on March 9, 2018. As part of the IEP, D.C. received 3.75 hours of "co-teach" instruction and 30 minutes of dyslexia services per week.
Dissatisfied with the IEP put in place by KISD, Plaintiffs filed a request for an impartial due process hearing with the Texas Education Agency. After the four-day evidentiary hearing that followed, the special education hearing officer made a number of findings, including the following:
As a consequence of the delay in evaluation and the inappropriate IEP, the hearing officer ordered KISD to convene to: (1) specifically identify the disability in reading comprehension; (2) provide for 45 minutes per day, four days per week, of reading instruction in a small group with a reading program designed to address reading comprehension deficits; and (3) schedule 108 hours of compensatory educational services in a one-on-one setting. The hearing officer also ordered the district to "modify [D.C.'s] IEP in accordance with the District's FIE to indicate [D.C.] is eligible for special education as a student with a Specific Learning Disability in reading comprehension, with specificweaknesses in comprehension/knowledge, fluid reasoning, long term memory, and processing speed." Dkt. 1-1 at 39.
This lawsuit followed, with Plaintiffs asking the Court to order KISD to pay attorney's fees and reimburse certain costs as a result of Plaintiffs prevailing in the administrative hearing. KISD filed a counterclaim, contending that D.C. is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial