Doe v. Key

• Decision Date: 31 March 2023
• Docket Number: 4:20-cv-01233 KGB
• Parties: DOE, C.P., Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of J.P. PLAINTIFF v. JOHNNY KEY, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education and Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Education and CABOT SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

1

DOE, C.P., Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of J.P. PLAINTIFF v. JOHNNY KEY, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education and Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Education and CABOT SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS

No. 4:20-cv-01233 KGB

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division

March 31, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Before the Court is a motion for judgment on the record filed by plaintiffs C.P., individually and as parent and next friend of J.P. (Dkt. No. 20). Separate defendant the Cabot School District (“District”) and separate defendant Johnny Key, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education and Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Education (“ADE”), filed responses to plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the record (Dkt. Nos 23, 26). Plaintiffs replied (Dkt. Nos. 29, 32). Plaintiffs submitted two notices of recent decisions for consideration (Dkt. Nos. 33, 43). For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the record (Dkt. No. 20).

I. Factual And Procedural Background

J.P., the daughter of C.P., attended Southside Elementary School in the District from kindergarten through fourth grade (Dkt. No. 20-1, at 50). J.P. completed the fourth grade at Southside Elementary School during the 2019-2020 school year (Id.).

In this litigation, the parties agree on the following material facts. The parties agree that C.P. removed J.P from the District and enrolled J.P. in the Hannah School (Dkt. No. 25, ¶ 1). On August 13, 2020, C.P. filed a due process complaint against the District alleging it failed to make a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) available to J.P. in a timely manner and seeking private school tuition reimbursement and concomitant relief pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1412(10)(C)(ii) (Id., ¶ 2). On August 21, 2020, the District responded to C.P.'s due process complaint admitting that “they reside within the Cabot School District as alleged in ¶ 1 of Petitioner's Complaint.” (Id., ¶ 3). The Hannah School is a private school and not a school district (Id., ¶ 4).

More specifically, the administrative record supports that, on August 13, 2020, plaintiffs filed an administrative due process complaint with the ADE, alleging that the District violated the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”), by failing to make a FAPE available to J.P. “within a reasonable period of time.” (Dkt. No. 20-1, at 51). Plaintiffs in their due process complaint alleged that the District:

[R]efused to identify [J.P.'s] primary disability; refused to target and intervene appropriately to address her dyslexia and other learning disabilities; and refused to monitoring [sic] and address her lack of progress which has resulted in her not being able to read at grade level; not being able to do calculations and solve math problems on grade level; and not being able to spell and write down her thoughts.

(Id., at 50-51). For relief, plaintiffs requested that the District be ordered to provide: (1) payment for registration, testing, tuition, and fees required for J.P. to attend the Hannah School for the 2020-2021 school year and each year thereafter until she is on grade level and can return to the District; (2) transportation and/or reimbursement to and from the Hannah School for the 20202021 school year and until J.P. is on grade level and can return to the District; and (3) all other necessary and proper relief to compensate J.P. for past deprivations of a FAPE and to provide a FAPE in the future (Id.).

As set forth above, the District responded to plaintiffs' due process complaint on August 21, 2020, admitting that “they reside within the Cabot School District, as alleged in ¶ 1 of Petitioner's Complaint.” (Id., at 36). The District also filed a “Motion To Dismiss And Notice Of Petitioner's Failure To Meet Sufficiency Requirements Of Subsection (b)(7)(A) Of Section 615 Public Law 105-17.” (Id., at 33-34).^[1]The District moved for dismissal of the due process complaint on the following grounds:

2. The Student is currently enrolled in The Hannah School, an accredited private school that provides educational services for students with dyslexia in Little Rock, Arkansas. See Complaint ¶ 49.

3. The Student was not placed at The Hannah School by the District but was removed from the District by the Parent and placed there. See Complaint ¶ 49. Accordingly, the Student is no longer the responsibility of the District, as The Hannah School is not in the District.

4. As Petitioner's daughter no longer attends school in the District, Petitioner is not entitled to a due process hearing and the Due Process Complaint filed herein should be dismissed. It is well settled that if a student changes school districts and does not request a due process hearing before doing so, the right to challenge prior educational services is not preserved and the petitioner fails to state a claim under the IDEA.... The rule is intended to provide the school district with notice and an opportunity to address the problem.

(Id., at 33-34). The District asserted that, because the due process complaint was filed after C.P. removed J.P. from the District and enrolled J.P. at the Hannah School, “the right to challenge prior educational services has been lost.” (Id., at 34).

On August 25, 2020, the due process hearing officer (“HO”) emailed plaintiffs the following question: “What date did the student enroll and begin receiving services at the Hannah School?” (Id., at 19). Plaintiffs objected to providing the exact date that J.P. was enrolled at the Hannah School, stating, “[C.P.] has the right to unilaterally remove J.P. from Cabot, enroll her in a private school, and seek reimbursement for private school tuition.” (Id.). Plaintiffs admitted that J.P. “was not placed at the Hannah School by the District; but rather, [C.P.] enrolled [J.P.] in the Hannah School ” (Id., at 26).

On August 28, 2020, the HO issued a pre-hearing order setting a due process hearing for September 16-18, 2020 (Id., at 16-17). In addition, the HO directed the parties to submit prehearing briefs on “the issues to be addressed and the arguments to be presented in the hearing.” (Id., at 16).

On September 3, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that “judicial notice be taken of the fact that the Hannah School is not an Arkansas School District.” (Id., at 3-4) (emphasis in original). That same day, the HO issued the following Order:

NOW on this 3rd day of September, 2020, this cause was submitted upon the pleadings, argument of Petitioner and Respondent, and other matters and things from all of which the Hearing Officer Orders the above styled action is hereby Dismissed with Prejudice. The decision of this Hearing Officer is final and shall be implemented unless a party aggrieved by it shall file a civil action in either Federal District Court or a State Court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act within ninety (90) days after the date on which the Hearing Officer's decision is filed with the Arkansas Department of Education. Pursuant to Section 10.01.36.5, Special Education and Related Services: Procedural Requirements and Program Standards, Arkansas Department of Education 2008, the Hearing Officer has no further jurisdiction over the parties to the hearing.

(Id., at 1).

On October 15, 2020, plaintiffs timely filed the instant action against Mr. Key in his official capacity as Commissioner of Education and Secretary of the ADE and the District seeking relief based on the following claims: (1) a claim pursuant to the IDEA for allegedly denying J.P. her right to a FAPE; (2) a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for purportedly denying plaintiffs their right to due process pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“Section 504”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165 (“Title II”), for alleged disability discrimination; and (4) a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 for declaratory and related relief (Dkt. No. 1).

Plaintiffs now move for judgment on the administrative record (Dkt. No. 20). Plaintiffs ask that the HO's order dismissing C.P.'s due process complaint be reversed and that the case be remanded to ADE for a due process hearing with instructions that it be assigned to a different hearing officer (Dkt. No. 20, ¶ 17).

II. Standard Of Review

Under the IDEA, a party may appeal from the state administrative proceedings to a federal district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). The Eighth Circuit has explained that a district court's role in reviewing a claim brought under the IDEA is to receive the records of the administrative proceedings, to hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and to grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate based on the preponderance of the evidence. K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795, 803 (8th Cir. 2011); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C).

In this case, plaintiffs move for a judgment on the record in the context of this IDEA case. Under this form of review, the Court may make a decision on the merits, even if there exist, upon the stipulated record, disputed issues of material fact. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D., 88 F.3d 556, 561 (8th Cir. 1996).

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs assert that the HO erred as a matter of law in dismissing C.P.'s due process complaint because C.P. placed J.P. in a private school (Dkt. No. 20, ¶ 13). Plaintiffs contend that the District remains responsible for providing J.P. a FAPE because, as the District admitted, “they reside within the Cabot School District, as alleged in ¶ 1 of Petitioner's Complaint.” (Id.).

Plaintiffs further contend that the...