Lori Wash. ex rel. J.W. v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-2752 |
| Citation | 447 F.Supp.3d 583 |
| Parties | Lori WASHINGTON, EX REL. J.W., Plaintiffs, v. KATY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Martin Jay Cirkiel, Cirkiel Assoc., Round Rock, TX, Andrew Joseph Willey, Drew Willey Law, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Christopher B. Gilbert, Thompson & Horton LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant.
A public-school officer in the Katy Independent School District's police department tased and handcuffed J.W., a 17-year-old special-education student. One year and four days later, J.W.'s mother, Lori Washington, requested a due-process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The hearing officer determined that all of J.W.'s claims were barred by the Texas one-year statute of limitations and dismissed Ms. Washington's petition.
Ms. Washington appealed the hearing officer's order on J.W.'s behalf. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment, both sides replied, and Ms. Washington filed a surreply. (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 14, 18, 19, 20). Based on the briefs, the administrative record, and the applicable law, the court grants in part and denies in part the parties' motions. The case is remanded to the hearing officer to determine which claims are not barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
The reasons for these rulings are detailed below.
The background comes from the allegations in the plaintiffs' amended petition, additional evidence submitted by the parties, and other documents in the administrative record. (Docket Entry Nos. 8, 9-1). J.W. attended Mayde Creek High School in the Katy Independent School District. (Docket Entry No. 8 at 142). He was diagnosed as intellectually disabled and emotionally disturbed, and qualified for special education. (Id. ). Although J.W. communicated well when calm, he was easily upset and became unable to communicate effectively when other students bullied him. (Id. ).
On November 30, 2016, a student in J.W.'s special-education classroom called J.W. "stupid," an "idiot," and "retarded." (Id. ). J.W. went to his "chill out room" to calm down, as specified in his Individualized Education Program. (Id. ). Another student was already in the room and began to bully J.W. (Id. ). J.W. left and tried to leave the school campus to calm down. (Id. at 142–43).
When J.W. tried to leave the campus, Katy ISD staff blocked J.W.'s exit. (Id. at 143). J.W. became increasingly anxious and could not communicate his fears or explain why he wanted to leave. (Id. ). A Katy ISD School Resource Officer, Officer Paley, and a school coach, tried to forcefully prevent J.W. from leaving. (Id. ). Officer Paley then allegedly shot J.W. with his taser gun six to eight times. (Id. ). J.W. urinated and defecated on himself. (Id. ). After J.W. was on the ground and lying on his stomach, Officer Paley said "Don't you move Goddamit," and another officer handcuffed J.W. (Id. ). J.W. screamed that he could not breathe and began to gag. (Id. at 144).
The school nurse assessed J.W., and the school contacted emergency medical services. (Id. ). After paramedics arrived, the school called J.W.'s mother, Lori Washington. (Id. ). Ms. Washington called an ambulance to take J.W. to the hospital. (Id. at 145). Afterwards, Ms. Washington kept J.W. home from school based on the advice of his medical providers, and because J.W. feared for his safety while at school. (Id. ).
After the incident, Ms. Washington asked for meetings with Katy ISD to discuss both the tasing and J.W.'s individualized education program. (Id. ). After repeated requests, Katy ISD scheduled a meeting on April 24, 2017, but cancelled it when Ms. Washington arrived with her attorney. (Id. ). Katy ISD convened another meeting on May 22, 2017, but told Ms. Washington that it was an inappropriate time to discuss the tasing incident. (Id. ). Ms. Washington requested another meeting to discuss the tasing, but Katy ISD never scheduled it. (Id. ). Ms. Washington also asked for meetings to discuss J.W.'s individualized education program and how it would address his anxiety, but Katy ISD allegedly never responded. (Id. at 145–46).
At the time of the November 30, 2016 incident, J.W. was 17 years old. (Docket Entry No. 10 at 8). On June 29, 2017, he turned 18. (Id. ). On December 4, 2017—one year and four days after Officer Paley tased J.W.—Ms. Washington filed a petition for a due-process hearing on J.W.'s behalf. (Docket Entry No. 8 at 221).
In her original petition, Ms. Washington alleged claims on J.W.'s behalf under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 221–243). Katy ISD answered the petition, raised the affirmative defense that all of J.W.'s IDEA claims were barred by the Texas one-year statute of limitations, and argued that the non-IDEA claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Id. at 179–86). Ms. Washington then amended her petition to remove the non-IDEA claims and to argue various theories about why the statute of limitations did not apply. (Id. at 138–57). Katy ISD allegedly did not respond to the amended petition. (Docket Entry No. 10 at 11). The hearing officer set an evidentiary hearing on whether J.W.'s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. (Docket Entry No. 8 at 45–46).
The hearing officer ordered the parties to submit exhibit and witness lists, any stipulated facts, and their objections to the evidence, and stated that he expected to see the tasing-video footage and hear testimony from Officer Paley. (Id. at 9, 18, 39, 107). The parties submitted briefs arguing the statute of limitations issue, but neither party filed an exhibit list or produced evidence for the hearing. (Id. at 6). Katy ISD had tried to email evidence, which the plaintiffs had intended to rely on, but problems with the parties' emails prevented the hearing officer from receiving the evidence. (Id. at 6, 10; Docket Entry No. 10 at 13–14). The hearing officer proceeded with the hearing, allowing J.W.'s counsel to argue his tolling theories. The hearing officer then issued an order dismissing the petition, finding that the one-year statute of limitations barred all of J.W.'s claims. (Docket Entry No. 8 at 66–72).
Ms. Washington appealed the hearing officer's order, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment based on the administrative record. (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 14). Both parties agreed to submit the additional evidence that Katy ISD had tried to offer at the evidentiary hearing. (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 9-1).
A district court reviews the decision of a due-process hearing officer "virtually de novo. " Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Woody , 865 F.3d 303, 309 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. , 118 F.3d 245, 252 (5th Cir. 1997) ). The court "receives the records of the administrative proceedings and also takes additional evidence at the request of any party." Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. V.P. ex rel. Juan P. , 582 F.3d 576, 582–83 (5th Cir. 2009). "As a practical matter, the IDEA creates a presumption in favor of the education plan proposed by the school district, and places the burden of proof on the party challenging it." Renee J. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. , 333 F. Supp. 3d 674, 683 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (quotation omitted); see also White ex rel. White v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd. , 343 F.3d 373, 377 (5th Cir. 2003). In reaching this decision, "courts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States." Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 207, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982).
A district court adopts a different standard when ruling on a summary judgment motion in an IDEA appeal. E.R. ex rel. E.R. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. , 909 F.3d 754, 762 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Seth B. ex rel. Donald B. v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. , 810 F.3d 961, 966–67 (5th Cir. 2016). In E.R. , the Fifth Circuit summarized the summary judgment standard for an IDEA appeal:
Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C) ... a district court must (i) "receive the records of the administrative proceedings"; (ii) "hear additional evidence at the request of a party"; and (iii) base "its decision on the preponderance of the evidence" and "grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate." The district court is required to "accord ‘due weight’ to the hearing officer's findings," but it "must ultimately reach an independent decision based on the preponderance of the evidence." Thus "the district court's ‘review’ of a hearing officer's decision is ‘virtually de novo.’ " Accordingly, in IDEA proceedings, summary judgment "is not directed to discerning whether there are disputed issues of fact, but rather, whether the administrative record, together with any additional evidence, establishes that there has been compliance with IDEA's processes and that the child's educational needs have been appropriately addressed."
E.R. , 909 F.3d at 762 (citing Seth B. , 810 F.3d at 966–67 ); see also Renee J. , 333 F. Supp. 3d at 683. The standard of review is "more expansive than the usual de novo review for summary judgments, as prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)." E.R. , 909 F.3d at 762.
"The IDEA's purpose is to ensure that children with disabilities have access to ‘free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.’ " C.G. ex rel. Keith G. v. Waller Indep. Sch. Dist. , 697 F. App'x 816, 818 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) ). A school must provide students eligible under the IDEA with "an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington ex rel. J.W. v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.
...F.Supp.3d 583, 586 (S.D. Tex. 2020). The hearing officer concluded that the remaining claims were time-barred and dismissed her petition. Id. at 587. In 2018, Ms. Washington initiated a separate lawsuit against Katy Independent School District and the school resource officer who tased J.W.,......
-
Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W.
... ... problem”); Reid ex rel. Reid, 401 F.3d at 524 ... 25 (requiring ... J.W ... v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist., 447 F.Supp.3d 583, ... 594 (S.D ... ...
-
Washington v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.
...up to the tasing. But as the hearing officer noted, this court concluded the claims arising from the tasing were time-barred. Washington, 447 F.Supp.3d at 593. only other alleged bullying incident, and the only one within the statute of limitations, arose after J.W. and a female student all......
- Frederking v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.