Jenn-Ching Luo v. Owen J. Roberts Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 14-6354,21-1098,21-5000 |
| Parties | JENN-CHING LUO, Plaintiff, v. OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants. JENN-CHING LUO, Plaintiff, v. OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants. JENN-CHING LUO, Plaintiff, v. OWEN J. ROBERTS SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Presently before the Court are multiple Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Jenn-Ching Luo's overlapping claims under: Civil Action No. 14-6354[1]; Civil Action No. 21-1098[2]; and Civil Action No. 21-5000.[3] Plaintiff Jenn-Ching Luo resides in Chester County, PA and sends his child (“Student”) to school in their local school district, Owen J. Roberts School District (“School District”). Student has special needs: an intellectual disability and autism, and Owen J. Roberts School District provides him with special education.
Plaintiff's claims arise from the School Districts' Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) evaluations and hearings and a bus aide necessity hearing. He believes his due process rights were violated because his: (1) opinions and input were not properly valued; and (2) requests for School District-sponsored residential placement at an education facility and an individual bus aide were not met, even though School District demonstrated that appropriate specialized educational accommodations were provided without meeting those two specific requests.
In their respective briefs, the Defendants argue that Mr. Luo puts forth no evidence to support his arguments. This Court agrees. Accordingly, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Civil Action No. 14-6354 (ECF Nos. 87, 88, 91, 95)), (Civil Action No. 21-1098 (ECF Nos. 5, 11, 17)), (Civil Action No 21-5000 (ECF Nos. 7, 11, 14)) are granted, and all of Plaintiff's claims, under all three dockets, are dismissed with prejudice.
Mr. Luo is a serial filer of largely unsuccessful cases in which he proceeds in forma pauperis and demands that the Court compel the School District to follow his directions and administer his child's education in the way he sees fit, including paying for residential private education, regardless of whether Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Free Appropriate Public Education under § 504 (FAPE) requirements are being met. Nearly every time Mr. Luo is met with a binding decision he does not like, he files a new complaint under a new docket-he has filed eight civil actions (14-6354, 15-2952, 15-4248, 16-6568, 17-1508, 19095, 21-1098, 21-5000) here in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, after litigating the same issue in a similar manner in the Eastern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.[4]
Plaintiff's claims have been well litigated, with over seven years of proceedings and binding decisions. The following factual recap provides helpful background information and is further detailed in the Report and Recommendation prepared by the Honorable Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Civil Action No. 14-6354, ECF No. 35). That Report and Recommendation was approved and adopted by the Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. i. Plaintiff's issues with Student's IEP and bus aide hearings
Student receives special education at an Approved Private School (“APS”) at the expense of the School District. Amended Compl., ¶ 13. At a November 21, 2013 IEP meeting, Luo requested and received a residential placement for Student. Accordingly, following a February 28, 2014 IEP meeting, Student's IEP was revised to include residential placement for the following school year. Id., ¶¶ 20, 24-25. On June 26, 2014, Luo and Defendant Geoffrey Ball, the supervisor of special education for the School District, met at Ball's request; Luo signed a consent form permitting a reevaluation of Student and an IEP invitation notice. Id., ¶¶ 31, 34, 35. Luo was informed at the meeting that Student would not be placed in a residential program and that the District never planned to place him in one, despite the previous IEP revision. Id., ¶¶ 36, 42. The District advised Luo that it did not have sufficient information to consider a residential placement; hence, the request for reevaluation. Id., ¶ 44. Luo disagreed with Ball's statements. Id., ¶ 48.
On June 27, 2014, Luo received a revised IEP that included a demand that Luo undergo “parent training.” Id., ¶ 52. He also received a Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (“NOREP”) implementing the revised IEP. Id., ¶ 56. Luo requested that the demand for “parent training” be removed from the revised IEP, but Ball refused. Id., ¶ 55.
On August 27, 2014, an administrative due process hearing was held before Hearing Officer Skidmore (“HO Skidmore)”. Id., ¶ 59. The issues addressed included the District's refusal to place Student in a residential program and the addition of a parent training requirement to the IEP. Id., ¶ 60. Following the hearing, on September 15, 2014, HO Skidmore issued a decision that, inter alia, ordered an Independent Educational Evaluation (“IEE”) of Student. Id., ¶ 73. Subsequently, the District issued a request to observe Student, both at school and home, as part of the IEE, but Luo refused to give consent, thus, Student was not observed in either setting. Id., ¶¶ 108, 110. On September 29, 2014, Luo advised the District that he objected to its performance of an IEE and would appeal the Hearing Officer's Decision. Id., ¶ 82. Nonetheless, the District retained Defendant Keri Kolbay, an employee of the Chester County Intermediate Unit, [5] to perform the IEE. Without Luo's consent, the School District released Student's records to Kolbay in order to complete the evaluation. Id., ¶¶ 86, 89, 90. Kolbay reviewed the child's file and prepared an IEE report. Id., ¶ 93. On November 5, 2014, Luo initiated a lawsuit which included an appeal of the Hearing Officer's Decision. Id., ¶ 83.
On December 4, 2014, Ball invited Luo to participate in a December 15, 2014 IEP meeting. Id., ¶ 97. Although Luo advised that he was unable to attend on that date, the District refused to reschedule, stating that it was “compelled to hold this meeting at the proposed date and time to review the report issued by the Independent Evaluator and implement any recommendations which may come from this report.” Id., ¶¶ 101, 102. Ball, with the approval of Defendant Sharon Montayne, Esq., counsel for the School District, proceeded with the December 15, 2014 meeting without Luo. Id., ¶ 106. Following the meeting, Ball, joined by Montayne, forwarded a NOREP to Luo, indicating that the IEP, revised based on the IEE report, included a provision which required Luo to participate in District-supervised training. Id., ¶¶ 109, 111, 112.
Luo also claims that the School District failed to give him proper notice of the termination of a personal bus aide for Student. Compl. at ¶ 41. Luo filed a due process complaint with the School District about the bus aide termination, after which Defendant Ball temporarily reinstated the bus aide. Compl. at ¶ 43. Because Ball restored the bus aide, Luo believed that the hearing in connection with his due process complaint should have been mooted. Compl. at ¶ 44. Luo, however, has not alleged that he withdrew his complaint. Instead, he alleges that the School District, with Montanye as its counsel, refused to dismiss the hearing, and requested Hearing Officer Charles W. Jelley maintain the hearing on the issue of “whether an aide on the bus is necessary for the delivery of FAPE to the child” in violation of his due process rights. Compl. at ¶ 49.
At the hearing, Montanye offered the testimony of two bus drivers and a bus aide for purposes of demonstrating that a bus aide was not necessary. Compl. at ¶ 59. Luo's claims against the Attorney Defendants arise from Montanye's efforts to move forward with the hearing and seek a determination as to whether a bus aide was necessary. Compl. at ¶¶ 52-60. Luo claims that he “was forced to appear in the hearing to present a mooted issue.” At the hearing, Jelley ruled in favor of the School District. Compl. at ¶ 64.
ii. Decisions in Civil Action No. 14-6354, and Mr. Luo's failure to comply with Court Orders
In filing Civil Action No. 14-6354 with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Luo sought review of the Hearing Officer's Decision based upon the District's refusal to carry out the terms of the IEP that recommended a residential placement for Student and legal error by the Hearing Officer ordering an IEE without Luo's consent. Id., ¶ 6. Additionally, Luo alleged § 1983 claims against each defendant for violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Id., ¶¶ 7-10. Luo requested: (1) placement of Student in a residential educational setting; (2), vacation of the Hearing Officer's Decision; and (3) an award of compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $3 million against each defendant.
Judge Wells prepared a Report and Recommendation which Judge O'Neill approved and adopted. Luo's claims were dismissed outright, or stayed for review of the Hearing Officer's decision, and eventually dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Luo failed to present evidence that could support his § 1983 claims or that the School District acted illegally in changing Student's IEP or mandating training for Luo.
Although most of Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice he was given the opportunity to file a second amended, consolidated complaint to address claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 for due process and “liberty rights” violations. Judge O'Neill consolidated Mr. Luo's open cases in 2016, and Plaintiff appealed that consolidation. Mr. Luo simultaneously...
To continue reading
Request your trial