Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton

• Decision Date: 25 February 2005
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A.05-0009-WS-B.,CIV.A.05-0009-WS-B.
• Parties: ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, v. Jarred BENTON, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

358 F.Supp.2d 1112

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, v. Jarred BENTON, Appellee.

No. CIV.A.05-0009-WS-B.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

February 25, 2005.

Broox G. Garrett, Jr., Brewton, AL, Susan Williams Reeves, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

James D. Sears, Sears & Algood, LLC, Daphne, AL, for Defendant.

ORDER

STEELE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on appellant Escambia County Board of Education's Motion to Remand (doc. 3) and its Motion for Stay of Administrative Due Process Hearing Proceedings (doc. 6). Both Motions have been briefed and are ripe for disposition.

I. Background.

This action arises pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (the "IDEA").¹ The stated purpose of the IDEA is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). To that end, the IDEA requires schools to assemble a team to evaluate each child with a disability and to develop and implement an individualized education program ("IEP") for that student. See Ortega v. Bibb County School Dist., 397 F.3d 1321, 1323-24 (11th Cir.2005). The IEP must be reviewed periodically, but no less than annually, by the IEP team to determine whether the student is achieving annual goals. See id.

The pleadings reflect that Jarred Benton ("Benton") is an eleven-year old student at W.S. Neal Elementary School, an educational institution within the school system administered by the Escambia County Board of Education (the "Board"). The singular issue at the core of this dispute is whether the Board has provided Benton, who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, with a free, appropriate public education conforming to the IDEA.

On March 11, 2004, Benton initiated the underlying administrative proceedings by requesting an impartial due process hearing from the Alabama Department of Education. (Motion to Remand (doc. 3), at Exh. A.) In making this request, Benton asserted that the Board had failed appropriately to evaluate and identify him as a student with a disability, had failed to prepare an appropriate IEP, and had failed to provide appropriately trained personnel to formulate and implement behavior management strategies for him. (Id.) Benton's principal dissatisfaction with the existing IEP appeared to be its failure to establish a behavior intervention plan or otherwise to address his behavioral needs.

Over the course of three days in the summer and fall of 2004, a due process hearing was conducted before Hearing Officer Wesley Romine. (Id. at Exh. B.) On or about November 8, 2004, the Hearing Officer issued a Due Process Decision (the "Administrative Decision") largely adverse to the Board. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Board had violated Benton's right to a free, appropriate public education under the IDEA by: (i) writing an improper IEP for him for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years; and (ii) failing to conduct a functional behavior assessment and either to draft and implement an appropriate behavior intervention plan or to revise Benton's IEPs to address his autistic behavior. (Id.)² The Administrative Decision directed the Board to prepare a functional behavior assessment for Benton within 30 days, and to cause a meeting of his IEP team to develop a behavior modification plan within the same time frame. (Id.) To date, the Board has failed to comply with these specific directives.

The Administrative Decision indicated that any party dissatisfied thereby must file a notice of intent to file civil action within 30 days, and must proceed actually to file such civil action within 30 days after filing such a notice. (Id. at 28-29.)³ The Board complied with both requirements by giving notice on December 6, 2004, then filing a one-paragraph pleading designated as a "Notice of Appeal" in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Alabama, on January 3, 2005. (Notice of Removal (doc. 1), at Exh. A.)⁴

Barely a week later, Benton removed the Escambia County action to this District Court, asserting that federal subject matter jurisdiction was conferred by the federal question provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Shortly thereafter, on January 25, 2005, Benton petitioned the Alabama Department of Education for another due process hearing, this time on the ground that the Board had "fail[ed] to implement the provisions of the due process hearing officer's decision" that lies at the heart of this action. (Motion for Stay (doc. 6), at Exh. 1.)⁵ Benton's request included a demand that this latest matter be heard by a hearing officer and that a decision be rendered within 45 days. (Id.) Two days later, on January 27, 2005, the parties were notified that P. Michael Cole had been appointed hearing officer in that matter.

In response to these developments, the Board filed two Motions in this action. The first, a Motion to Remand, petitions the Court to send this action back to state court on the ground that Benton lacked the legal status to remove it. The second, a Motion to Stay, requests that this Court enter an order staying the administrative proceedings initiated by Benton on January 25, 2005, on the ground that the relief requested in those proceedings is coextensive with the subject matter of the instant appeal and violates the IDEA's "stay put" provision.⁶

II. Motion to Remand.

A. Legal Standard.

A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and, therefore, of establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir.2002) ("A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction."); Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir.1996), overruled on other grounds by Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir.2000). Because removal infringes upon state sovereignty and implicates central concepts of federalism, removal statutes must be construed narrowly, with all doubts resolved in favor of remand. See Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir.2003); University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir.1999) (explaining that strict construction of removal statutes derives from "significant federalism concerns" raised by removal jurisdiction); Whitt v. Sherman Int'l Corp., 147 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir.1998) (expressing preference for remand where removal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir.1994) (removal uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand); Newman v. Spectrum Stores, Inc., 109 F.Supp.2d 1342, 1345 (M.D.Ala.2000) ("Because federal court jurisdiction is limited, the Eleventh Circuit favors remand of removed cases where federal jurisdiction is not absolutely clear.").

B. Analysis.

The law is clear that, as a general rule, "[d]efendants can remove civil actions over which the federal courts would have had original jurisdiction." Reed v. Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055, 1058 (11th Cir.2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ("any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending"). The Eleventh Circuit has recently recognized the following three prerequisites for removal jurisdiction: (1) the case originated in state court; (2) the defendant removed the case to the proper federal court; and (3) the federal district court had original jurisdiction to entertain the suit. See Cogdell v. Wyeth, 366 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir.2004). Here, the Board does not challenge either the first or third removal requirements; rather, its sole argument in favor of remand is that Benton is not the "defendant" and therefore could not validly remove this case.

1. Whether Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists.

Before addressing whether Benton is properly classified as a "defendant," the Court examines whether it has original jurisdiction over this matter.⁷ There being no suggestion that jurisdiction here could properly be predicated on diversity of citizenship, federal subject matter jurisdiction must stand or fall based on the existence of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That determination, in turn, depends on whether appeals of administrative decisions in IDEA actions lie within the original jurisdiction of federal district courts.

The IDEA itself creates concurrent federal and state jurisdiction by providing that any party aggrieved by an administrative decision "shall have the right to bring a civil action ... in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Under any reasonable interpretation of this language, appeals from IDEA administrative decisions properly present federal questions giving rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional School Dist., 346 F.3d 247, 258 (1st Cir.2003) (declaring that federal court would have original jurisdiction over IDEA claims); Ullmo ex rel. Ullmo v. Gilmour Academy, 273 F.3d 671, 680 (6th Cir.2001) ("Any claim arising under the IDEA is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the district court" under § 1331, notwithstanding fact that the IDEA gives plaintiff choice of filing in state or federal court); Linda W. v. Indiana Dept. of Educ., 927 F.Supp. 303, 306 (N.D.Ind.1996) (finding that the IDEA explicitly creates federal jurisdiction over claims brought by any party aggrieved by results of administrative proceedings).⁸ Thus, the Court finds that this action is one...