Doe ex rel. His Parents v. School Dist.

• Citation: 899 A.2d 1258
• Decision Date: 13 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2005-172-Appeal.,2005-172-Appeal.
• Parties: John DOE, a minor, by and through HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS v. EAST GREENWICH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

899 A.2d 1258

John DOE, a minor, by and through HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS v. EAST GREENWICH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT et al.

No. 2005-172-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 13, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

George Lieberman, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.

Jennifer Wood, Esq., for the R.I. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

John Cloherty, III, Esq., Boston, MA, for the East Greenwich School Department.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Chief Justice WILLIAMS, for the Court.

This appeal concerns the requirement that a litigant who asserts on behalf of a child that he or she is being denied his or her guarantees under federal law to a free and appropriate public education exhaust the administrative process before bringing a civil suit to enforce these guarantees. More specifically, the plaintiff, John Doe¹ (plaintiff), appeals from a judgment dismissing his civil suit brought in Superior Court against the defendants, East Greenwich School Department (school department), Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (department of education), Peter McWalters in his capacity as Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education (McWalters), and the Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education (board of regents) (collectively defendants). A motion justice dismissed the plaintiff's suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on March 28, 2006, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that this appeal may be decided at this time, without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

I Facts and Travel

For the purposes of reviewing this dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we accept as true the following facts, which are well-pleaded in plaintiff's complaint.²

In June 2003, plaintiff, a seven-year-old diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome,³ proposed to the school department an individualized education program (IEP) for the 2003-04 school year. That proposal was "based upon recommendations from expert consultants" who had observed plaintiff. The school department told plaintiff it would respond within two weeks. After it failed to do so, plaintiff promptly requested a due process hearing before the department of education on July 9, 2003.

In late July 2003, the department of education appointed a hearing officer to plaintiff's case. At approximately the same time, plaintiff proposed to the school department a consent judgment containing an IEP that, again, was "consistent with the recommendations of the expert consultants who actually observed" plaintiff. At a prehearing conference before the department of education on August 8, 2003, the school department declined to respond to the consent judgment, and the hearing officer scheduled hearing dates for early September.

Those September hearing dates, however, were postponed. The plaintiff and the school department agreed to reschedule the hearings for early October and also agreed that the school department would provide some services for plaintiff during the first month of the school year. Also, plaintiff and the school department agreed, pursuant to the hearing officer's order, to hold an "IEP meeting" on September 29, 2003, in which two "consultants" would participate. The school department, however, postponed that meeting until October 2, 2003; in doing so, the school department assured plaintiff that the two consultants would be able to attend that meeting on the rescheduled date. The plaintiff later learned that the consultants were both unavailable on October 2, and that they had never been asked if they would be available on that date.

On October 3, 2003, the hearing officer continued until early November the due process hearing scheduled for early October. This continuance was designed to allow the school department to complete its proposed IEP before the hearing. The hearing officer denied the school department's additional request to continue that hearing.

After two continuances, plaintiff notified the school department on October 31, 2003, that he believed further participation in the administrative process would be futile. Nevertheless, plaintiff continued in the administrative process. At a due process hearing on November 3, 2003, the hearing officer declined to implement plaintiff's proposed IEP and also declined to enter plaintiff's consent judgment. In turn, at an IEP meeting on November 5, 2003, plaintiff rejected the school department's proposed IEP.

In an obvious effort to avoid further delay, the hearing officer scheduled due process hearings for the evenings of January 20, 21, and 22, 2004.⁴ In anticipation of those hearings, the parties agreed that plaintiff's expert witness would be allowed to observe plaintiff in his school environment. The school department's attorney, however, failed to notify the school of the expert's planned visit, and when the expert arrived at the school, the school principal refused to allow her to observe plaintiff. At the request of the school department, the hearing officer then postponed until February 24, 2004, the hearings scheduled for January 20, 21, and 22. At that time, the hearing officer planned to address plaintiff's following requests: (1) that the hearing officer require the school department to pay the expert's fees for her time on the day she was prevented from observing plaintiff; and (2) that the hearing officer issue an order requiring the school department to allow the expert to observe plaintiff without any interference. The plaintiff objected to this continuance and declined to participate in any further proceedings before the department of education.⁵

Although the fact is not contained within the four corners of his complaint, plaintiff's parents have removed plaintiff from the East Greenwich school system.⁶

Instead of continuing to pursue his claims before the department of education, plaintiff filed this civil action in Superior Court alleging that defendants had failed to adopt and implement a timely IEP and that, therefore, they were subject to liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2003).⁷ The complaint requested both money damages and equitable relief. The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.⁸ After hearing argument from counsel for plaintiff, counsel for the department of education and the board of regents, and counsel for the school department, the motion justice issued a written decision in which he dismissed plaintiff's complaint, holding that plaintiff had failed to plead facts sufficient to prove that he had exhausted the administrative process. The plaintiff now appeals.

II Analysis

When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), "`this Court examines the allegations contained in the * * * complaint [and] assumes them to be true.'" Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island v. DiPrete, 845 A.2d 270, 286 (R.I.2004). Dismissal is appropriate only when "`it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that * * * plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proven.'" Id.

A general sketch of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400 through 1487 (West 2000 & Supp.2006)—or at least those aspects of the federal statute that are applicable to this appeal—is required before proceeding to the precise issues at hand. As is our usual practice, we will be influenced by federal interpretations of a federal statute. See, e.g., Marques v. Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare of New England, Inc., 883 A.2d 742, 749 (R.I.2005) (interpreting Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in accordance with federal precedent).

All children with disabilities are entitled to a "free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs * * *." 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(d)(1)(A). An IEP, which is defined as "a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised" in accordance with certain statutory procedures, id. § 1401(14), is the backbone of a disabled child's free, appropriate public education. The United States Supreme Court has elaborated on the nature of IEPs in this way:

"Prepared at meetings between a representative of the local school district, the child's teacher, the parents or guardians, and, whenever appropriate, the disabled child, the IEP sets out the child's present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives. * * * The IEP must be reviewed and, where necessary, revised at least once a year in order to ensure that local agencies tailor the statutorily required `free appropriate public education' to each child's unique needs." Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988).

Beyond these substantive guarantees, the IDEA mandates that state educational agencies "establish and maintain procedures * * * to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards * * *." 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(a). Many of those...