District of Columbia v. Ramirez, CIV.A.04-0775 JDB.

• Decision Date: 01 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.04-0775 JDB.,CIV.A.04-0775 JDB.
• Citation: 377 F.Supp.2d 63
• Parties: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Bertila RAMIREZ, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

377 F.Supp.2d 63

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Bertila RAMIREZ, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.A.04-0775 JDB.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

July 1, 2005.

Veronica A. Porter, Office of Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Tilman L. Gerald, James E. Brown & Associates, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BATES, District Judge.

Plaintiff, the District of Columbia, brings this suit against C.G-R., a minor, and his parents (collectively, "defendants") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA" or "the Act"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2005). Plaintiff challenges the determination of a D.C. Public Schools ("DCPS") hearing officer that the IDEA requires plaintiff to provide C.G-R., who is confined to a wheelchair, with transportation between the door of his family's apartment and his school bus.¹ Compl. ¶¶ 25-27. Defendants argue that plaintiff has shown no basis on which the Court may disturb the hearing officer's determination ("HOD"), and that, in any case, the IDEA and plaintiff's own municipal code and regulations require plaintiff to provide C.G-R. with transportation from his apartment door to the DCPS bus.

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, seeking what is effectively a judgment on the Administrative Record (the "Record"). Plaintiffs ask the Court to reverse the portions of the HOD which require it to provide a transportation aide to assist C.G-R. Defendants oppose this motion and request that the HOD be affirmed. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff's motion is denied, the decision of the hearing officer is affirmed, and judgment is therefore granted in defendants' favor.

BACKGROUND

I. Statutory Background

As a state education agency, DCPS is required to provide special education students like C.G-R. with "a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs ... to all children with disabilities residing in the State." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.1(a); accord D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5, § 3000.1 (2005). The Act and its attendant regulations also explicitly guarantee provision of "related services," defined as "transportation ... and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education," including "travel to and from school...." 34 C.F.R. § 300.24(a), (b)(15)(I); D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5, § 3001.1; see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A), 1401(22).

Pursuant to the provision of a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") and related services, Federal and D.C. Municipal Regulations require that an individualized education program ("IEP"), including a "statement of the special education and related services ... that will be provided for the child... to be educated ...," be developed for each student. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.341(a)(1), 300.347(a)(3) (2005); D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 5, §§ 3001, 3002.3(c). The Supreme Court has further defined the role of IEPs, requiring that they be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits." Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982).

The Superintendent of DCPS issued Directive 530.0 in 2000, specifying that special education transportation services be provided according to the requirements of the IDEA and regulations issued thereunder. Admin. R. at 25. With respect to the pick-up and drop-off of students, the Directive orders that: "As determined through the IEP process, students with disabilities shall be picked up and dropped off either at the door of their residence, or at the curbside of their residence." Id. at 24. Additionally, DCPS's Transportation Guide for parents of special education students states that "[i]f your child is not waiting outside when the bus arrives, the attendant will ... go to the door of your house or apartment, and assist your child as he/she boards the bus." Id. at 40 (emphasis added).

II. Factual Background

C.G-R.'s IEP was last revised on October 30, 2003, and it provided for his receipt of various related services, including transportation. See Admin. R. at 70. However, plaintiff and defendants disagreed (as they continue to) over whether C.G-R.'s IEP required plaintiff to provide a transportation aide to convey C.G-R. to and from defendants' apartment and the school bus. Accordingly, defendants requested an administrative due process hearing, as guaranteed them under the IDEA, seeking to compel DCPS to provide an aide to assist C.G-R.

Following a hearing, the DCPS hearing officer issued a determination on February 6, 2004, requiring plaintiff to provide a transportation aide for C.G-R. to facilitate his access to an FAPE. The hearing officer found that plaintiff's municipal regulations and DCPS's Transportation Guide both allowed for provision of an aide to assist students similar to C.G-R. Id. at 40-41. The HOD stated that because C.G-R.'s parents could not get him outside to the bus, and because DCPS refused to provide an aide to do so, C.G-R. was being denied an FAPE. Id. Because of C.G-R.'s inability to access an FAPE absent a transportation aide, the hearing officer found it "not unreasonable" for DCPS to provide such an aide. Id. Accordingly, DCPS was ordered to modify C.G-R.'s IEP to provide for a dedicated aide to transport him to and from the school bus. Admin. R. at 41. The IEP was never so modified, and an aide was never provided. Id. at 3. Following issuance of the HOD, plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider and Rescind the order. Id. at 16-17. The hearing officer once again decided in C.G-R.'s favor, ordering DCPS to adhere to the terms of the earlier HOD, or refer C.G-R. to a private institution that could. Id. at 5-6.

Plaintiff filed the current action for judicial review of the HOD on May 13, 2004. On November 22, 2004, plaintiff filed the Motion for Summary Judgment currently before the Court, which seeks a ruling on the evidence in the Record, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B); see Heather S. v. Wisconsin, 125 F.3d 1045, 1052 (7th Cir.1997). Defendants filed an Opposition to plaintiffs' motion on December 22, 2004, and plaintiff filed a reply on January 14, 2005.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and the evidence demonstrate that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party may successfully support its motion by "informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of `the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

In determining whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment, the court must regard the non-movant's statements as true and accept all evidence and make all inferences in the non-movant's favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A non-moving party, however, must establish more than the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of its position. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. By pointing to the absence of evidence proffered by the non-moving party, a moving party may succeed on summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-movant fails to offer "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant]." Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255, 259-60 (D.C.Cir.1999).

II. Judicial Review of IDEA Due Process Hearing Determinations

The IDEA permits "any party aggrieved by the findings and decision" rendered during administrative proceedings to "bring a civil action" in state or federal court without regard to the amount in controversy. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(b)(3). The reviewing court "shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(b)(3). In a review of an HOD, the burden of proof is always on the party challenging the administrative determination, who must "at least take on the burden of persuading the court that the hearing officer was wrong [by a preponderance of the evidence]." Kerkam v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d 884, 887 (D.C.Cir.1988).

The Supreme Court has interpreted the "preponderance" standard of review not to be an allowance of unfettered de novo review. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034. Rather, consideration of the record impliedly requires courts to give "due weight" to the administrative proceedings, id., and "[f]actual findings from the administrative proceeding are to be considered prima facie correct," S.H. v. School Dist. of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 270 (3rd Cir.2003). Therefore, courts may not substitute their own views for those of the hearing officer, see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034; Shaw v. District of Columbia, 238 F.Supp.2d 127, 135 (D.D.C.2002), and a court upsetting a hearing officer's decision "must at least explain its...