Dell v. Board of Educ., Tp. High School Dist. 113

• Decision Date: 09 August 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-1206,93-1206
• Citation: 32 F.3d 1053
• Parties: 93 Ed. Law Rep. 1143, 6 A.D.D. 500 Jeffrey and Pat DELL, on their behalf and on behalf of Sean Dell, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 113, North Suburban Special Education District, Illinois State Board of Education, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1053

32 F.3d 1053

93 Ed. Law Rep. 1143, 6 A.D.D. 500

Jeffrey and Pat DELL, on their behalf and on behalf of Sean

Dell, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 113, North

Suburban Special Education District, Illinois

State Board of Education, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-1206.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 12, 1994.

Decided Aug. 9, 1994.

Marilyn F. Longwell and Diana Triplett Epstein (argued), Chicago, IL, for Jeffrey Dell and Pat Dell.

Edward M. Kay, James T. Ferrini, Mark Seplak, Susan Condon, Imelda Terrazino (argued), Michael R. Grimm, Kevin P. Mohr, Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, Chicago, IL, for Board of Educ., Tp. High School Dist. 113 and North Suburban Special Educ. Dist.

Gary M. Griffin, Mary Ellen Coghlan, Susan Frederick Rhodes (argued), Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, IL, for Illinois State Bd. of Educ. and Bonita Simon.

Before RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges, and SHARP, Chief District Judge. ^*

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

This is an action for reimbursement and attorneys' fees brought under the Education of the Handicapped Act ("EHA"), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq., now entitled the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA" or "the Act"). ¹ Jeffrey and Pat Dell, the parents of Sean Dell, their handicapped child, instituted this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their son. They sought reimbursement for an independent evaluation of Sean's educational needs. The suit was brought against various school districts ("the

                School District defendants"), 2 the Illinois State Board of Education, and two administrative hearing officers ("the State defendants"). 3  The district court dismissed the original complaint because it was barred by the statute of limitations.  With permission of the court, the Dells then amended their complaint to include a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings.  The district court first dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Sec. 1983 against the School District defendants.  In a later decision, the court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the State defendants.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part
                

I

BACKGROUND

A. The Statutory Scheme of the IDEA and its Precursors

Before we turn to the merits of the appeal brought by the Dells, we sketch the structure of the IDEA as it pertains to our later discussion. The purpose of the IDEA is "to ensure that children with disabilities receive an education that is both appropriate and free." Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 361, 365, 126 L.Ed.2d 284 (1993) (citing School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 373, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 2004, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985)). The Act provides federal revenues intended to "assist State and local efforts to provide programs to meet the educational needs of handicapped children in order to assure equal protection of the law." 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(b)(9). To receive funding, participating states must comply with the procedures set forth in the IDEA that guarantee a reasonable probability of educational benefits and supportive services at public expense. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412; Hendrick Hudson Dist. Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3041-3042, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). The Act requires a state to determine what is uniquely "appropriate" for each child's education by preparing an "individualized education program" ("IEP") developed through the joint participation of the local education agency, the teacher, and the parents. 20 U.S.C. Secs. 1401(a)(18)-(20), 1412(4), 1414(a)(5).

Section 1415 of the IDEA imposes on the states elaborate procedural safeguards guaranteeing an appropriate education. The checks include the right to obtain educational testing of the child, called an "independent case study evaluation" or "ICSE." Section 1415 also provides a formal hearing to challenge the adequacy of the IEP when informal procedures have failed. After a complaint is brought to initiate such a formal hearing, an impartial Level I hearing is conducted by a local administrative officer. The Level I decision then may be appealed to a Level II hearing before another administrative officer appointed by the state department of education. Following the final administrative determination, the party aggrieved by the decision of the state educational agency has the right to challenge the decision through a civil action brought in either state or federal court. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(2). ⁴ The statutory provision simply grants the right to file suit, but does not specify the time period within which to bring it. The statute also

                permits courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees to parents, but does not set forth a deadline within which to file for the fees.  20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(e)(4)(B). 5  This absence of an explicit statutory time bar for these two filings creates the basis for this appeal
                

B. Facts ⁶

The Dells' son Sean is a handicapped child who has exhibited academic and behavioral difficulties throughout his school career. In their search to find appropriate education for Sean, the Dells obtained an ICSE. The parents then sought reimbursement for that evaluation from School District 113, in which Sean then was enrolled. In response, the school district requested a Level I hearing concerning the parents' right to reimbursement of the costs of their privately obtained ICSE.

The Level I hearing officer, Bonita Simon, found that School District 113 had failed to provide an adequate evaluation of Sean and had acted in bad faith by neither evaluating the Dells' son nor considering the recommendations of the independent evaluator. The officer concluded that the school district had violated Sean's right to a free and appropriate public education. However, the hearing officer also found that the costs submitted by the independent evaluator for the ICSE were excessive. Accordingly, she required the school district to reimburse the parents for only the usual and customary costs for educational assessment.

Both parties sought a Level II review of that decision. The Level II review officer, Martin Malin, conducted a de novo review of the administrative record and received briefs and exhibits submitted by the parties. The Level II determination, affirming the Level I decision and ordering the school district to reimburse the Dells in the amount of $2,000 for the ICSE, was sent to the parties by certified mail on November 13, 1989.

On March 14, 1990, the Dells brought an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that Sean was denied his right to a free public education in violation of the School Code of Illinois, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, p 14-1.01 et seq. (now 105 ILCS 5/14-1.01 et seq.), and "all other laws and regulations." R.1. The defendants removed the action to federal court on the ground that the Dells' action arose at least in part under the IDEA.

C. Judicial Proceedings

The district court agreed with the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the School District defendants' motion to dismiss the Dells' original complaint ⁷ as untimely. The court determined that the complaint was filed one day later ⁸ than the statutory 120-day limitation period for judicial review of an administrative decision under the Illinois School Code, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 122, p 14-8.02(j), ⁹ which the court found to be The Dells then amended their complaint to bring a Sec. 1983 claim against the defendants. In this count, they claimed a deprivation of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights on the ground of procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings. The complaint alleged conflicts of interest and bias on the part of the Level I hearing officer Bonita Simon. It stated that Ms. Simon was an Administrator in the DuPage/West Cook Regional Special Education Association, and that the Association's legal counsel was a member of the law firm which had represented the School District defendants during the administrative hearings before Ms. Simon. The complaint alleged that Ms. Simon thus had an attorney-client relationship with the attorney representing the School District defendants in the action before her, and that as a result she was potentially or actually prejudiced in favor of that attorney in the Level I hearing. The complaint sought costs and attorneys' fees resulting from the denial of a fair and impartial hearing.

the statute most closely analogous to the Act and most consistent with the policies underlying it. After concluding that the School Code's limitation period applied equally to Sec. 1415(e)(2) actions for costs and to Sec. 1415(e)(4) actions for attorneys' fees, it determined that both were untimely filed. Although dismissing this complaint as time-barred, ¹⁰ the court permitted the Dells to file an amended complaint with a new count.

On July 17, 1992, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's October 25, 1991 report and recommendation, and found no basis for a constitutionally-required disqualification of the hearing officer. The court held that Ms. Simon did not have a personal attorney-client relationship with the attorney representing the School District defendants. Because the plaintiffs did not plead that Ms. Simon knew of the attorney-client relationship involving her employer and the firm representing the School District defendants, the plaintiffs did not show any bias on the part of Ms. Simon. Concluding that the hearing officer had no "direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against" the Dells, Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821-22, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 1585, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986), the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Sec. 1983. The district court subsequently...