J.B. v. Dist. of Columbia

• Decision Date: 06 September 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-cv-1298 (CRC)
• Citation: 325 F.Supp.3d 1
• Parties: J.B., a minor BY AND THROUGH her parent Robert BELT, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

325 F.Supp.3d 1

J.B., a minor BY AND THROUGH her parent Robert BELT, Plaintiff,

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-1298 (CRC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed September 6, 2018

Chesseley Alexander Robinson, III, Law Office of Chesseley Alexander Robinson, III, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff.

Veronica A. Porter, Office of Attorney General/DC, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge

Robert Belt thinks the District of Columbia Public School System ("DCPS") has sold his granddaughter J.B. short. In Belt's view, DCPS has not done enough to ensure that J.B.—who was diagnosed first with a learning disability and later an intellectual disability—makes appropriate academic progress at her public elementary school. Belt and J.B. (collectively, "plaintiffs") sought remedies through the proper administrative channels, but an administrative hearing officer denied their requests. Believing the hearing officer got it wrong, plaintiffs filed this federal lawsuit in June 2017. They claim that DCPS violated J.B.'s right to a "free appropriate public education" ("FAPE") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq . Specifically, they allege that DCPS failed to develop an adequate Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for J.B. and failed to comply with the terms of the IEPs it did produce. To right these alleged wrongs, plaintiffs want DCPS to subsidize J.B.'s placement in a non-public school.

Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment; the District responded with its own motion for summary judgment. The Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, who recommended that the Court deny Belt's motions and grant the District's. Plaintiffs then filed objections to the recommendation, and the District responded to those objections. After a fresh review of the magistrate judge's work and plaintiffs' objections, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and will grant summary judgment in the District's favor.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Magistrate Judge Harvey's Report and Recommendation provides a comprehensive recitation of the facts, see Report and Recommendation ("R & R") at 2-21, so the Court will give only a brief summary.

When this case was filed in June 2017, J.B. was a 14-year-old eighth-grader at LaSalle Backus Elementary School in the District of Columbia. Compl. ¶ 1. She had been given her first IEP as a Specific Learning Disabled student in 2010. Administrative Record ("AR") Exh. 2 at 1. In 2013, J.B. was reevaluated and re-classified as intellectually deficient rather than learning-disabled. Id. A modified IEP followed in October 2014, and once annually over the next three years. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 7, 15.

From the October 2014 IEP through January 2017, according to DCPS's own evaluations, J.B. made only limited—and in some categories, no—progress. See Compl. ¶ 19 (no change in performance in written expression and motor skills). J.B. stagnated in other areas from 2015 to 2017. Id. (no change in social/emotional development). And while J.B. improved in some competencies (like reading) from 2015 to 2017, the reading goals established for J.B. in her IEP stayed the same. Id. ¹

Unhappy with the pace of J.B.'s progress, plaintiffs filed an administrative due process complaint with DCPS in January 2017. The complaint alleged that DCPS had denied J.B. a FAPE by failing to (1) include a special education teacher in J.B.'s IEP planning meetings; (2) develop an IEP in October 2016 and January 2017 that was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits; (3) identify an appropriate location of services; and (4) implement J.B.'s IEPs effectively given that she had made minimal or no academic progress from October 2014 to January 2017. AR Exh. 1 at 4-5. For relief, plaintiffs sought funding to subsidize J.B.'s placement at a non-public school and enrollment in an extended-school-year program.

An administrative due process hearing took place in March 2017, at which plaintiffs presented four witnesses and the District another two. AR Exs. 3-6; R & R at 3. Shortly thereafter, the hearing officer determined that DCPS had fulfilled its obligation to provide J.B. with a FAPE and denied plaintiffs' requested relief. AR Exh. 1 at 14-15.

This lawsuit challenges that administrative determination. The plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment. The District opposed both motions and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court referred these motions to Magistrate Judge Harvey, who issued his R & R on May 5, 2018, recommending summary judgment in the District's favor. Plaintiffs timely filed their objections to the R & R, the District has responded, and the matter is now ripe for the Court's resolution.

II. Legal Standards

A. Judgment on the Pleadings

A party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) when "no material issue of fact remains to be solved, and the movant is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Montanans for Multiple Use v. Barbouletos, 542 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2008) (citations and alteration omitted). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion, "courts employ the same standard that governs a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss," McNamara v. Picken, 866 F.Supp.2d 10, 14 (D.D.C. 2012), meaning it must accept a complaint's factual allegations as true but need not accept its legal conclusions, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

B. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In a case under the IDEA, where the Court reviews a hearing officer's determination, the relevant record is that developed in the administrative proceeding and any additional evidence introduced by the parties. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). So where, as here, no additional evidence has been introduced, a motion for summary judgment is in effect a motion for judgment based on the administrative record. District of Columbia v. Ramirez, 377 F.Supp.2d 63, 67 (D.D.C. 2005).

In reviewing the administrative record, courts must give "due weight" to the hearing officer's determination. Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). Such deference is necessary because "courts lack the 'specialized knowledge and experience' necessary to resolve 'persistent and difficult questions of educational policy.' " Rowley, 458 U.S. at 208, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (quoting San Antonio Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 42, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) ). In practice, that means courts should consider a hearing officer's factual findings "prima facie correct" and "may not substitute their own views for those of the hearing officer." Ramirez, 377 F.Supp.2d at 67 (citations omitted). Moreover, a party challenging a hearing officer's determination bears the "burden of persuading the court [by a preponderance of the evidence] that the hearing officer was wrong[.]"

Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 521 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).²

C. Review of Objections to the R & R

While the Court (and the magistrate judge) must accord "due weight" to the hearing officer's determination in the administrative proceeding, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. 3034, it reviews de novo any portion of the R & R to which a party properly objects, Fed. R. Civ. 72(b)(3); Aikens v. Shalala, 956 F.Supp. 14, 19 (D.D.C. 1997). After reviewing the record, objections, and any responses thereto, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify" the R & R's proposed disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

These interlocking legal standards amount to this: the Court will review with fresh eyes the portions of the R & R to which plaintiffs object, but in so doing, defer appropriately to the hearing officer's determination, just as the magistrate judge did.

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs raise nine objections to the magistrate judge's R & R.³ Objection to Report and Recommendation ("Pls.' Objections") at 2. The Court takes them in the order plaintiffs present them.

A. The R & R Gives Inadequate Attention to J.B.'s Present Levels of Performance

Plaintiffs first object that the R & R paid too little attention to the IEPs' present-levels-of-performance sections, which are supposed to—but according to the plaintiffs, did not—document J.B.'s current achievement in various academic categories. Pls.' Objections at 17.

Plaintiffs' argument fails for two reasons. First, it is incorrect on the facts: as the magistrate judge documented, the IEPs do estimate J.B.'s current achievement and document her progress. To take just one example—one highlighted in the R & R—the January 2017 IEP noted that J.B. was "able to write and copy simple words and sentences with good letter to baseline alignment" and remarked that she "has improved since the previous years." AR Exh. 2 at 170; see R & R at 37 (discussing January 2017 IEP). Second, even assuming the IEPs were deficient in documenting J.B.'s present performance, plaintiffs must show that this procedural shortcoming led to some substantive denial in the form of a lower-quality education. Lesesne ex rel. B.F. v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828, 834 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (collecting cases that stand for this proposition). Plaintiffs come up short in this regard. While they contend generally that an IEP cannot be tailored appropriately to the needs of the individual student without adequately documenting the student's current achievement levels, Pls.' Objections at 18, they do not show that any purported...