M.L. v. El Paso Independent School Dist., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-76-KC.

• Decision Date: 16 April 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-76-KC.
• Citation: 610 F.Supp.2d 582
• Parties: M.L., as next friend of A.L., Plaintiff, v. EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

610 F.Supp.2d 582

M.L., as next friend of A.L., Plaintiff, v. EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-76-KC.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

April 16, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles Mark Berry, Attorney at Law, Colbert N. Coldwell, Guevara, Rebe, Bumann, Coldwell & Reedman, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff.

Elena M. Gallegos, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, PC, Austin, TX, Joe Ruben Tanguma, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, PC, Irving, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER

KATHLEEN CARDONE, District Judge.

On this day, the Court considered "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Plaintiff's Motion") (Doc. No. 20); Defendant "El Paso Independent School District's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Defendant's Response") (Doc. No. 23); and Plaintiff's "Reply to El Paso ISD's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Plaintiff's Reply") (Doc. No. 28). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

On this day, the Court also considered Defendant "El Paso Independent School District's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Defendant's Motion") (Doc. No. 19); "Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Plaintiff's Response") (Doc. No. 27);¹ and "Defendant El Paso Independent School District's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Defendant's Reply") (Doc. No. 32). For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Introduction

Plaintiff brings her case pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq. ("IDEA"). The purposes of the IDEA include "ensur[ing] that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education ["FAPE"] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) (2006); see also El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 567 F.Supp.2d 918, 925 (W.D.Tex. 2008). To achieve this aim, the IDEA compels those states receiving federal funding to educate children with disabilities "to the maximum extent appropriate ... with children who are not disabled," 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5), and to do so "in the least restrictive environment consistent with their needs." Teague Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Todd L., 999 F.2d 127, 128 (5th Cir.1993) (citing Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193, 207 n. 23 (5th Cir.1992) (explaining that least restrictive environment connotes "not only freedom from restraint, but the freedom of the child to associate with his or her family and able-bodied peers")). Although the FAPE that the IDEA demands of the states "need not be the best possible one, nor one that will maximize the child's educational potential," it must "be an education that is specifically designed to meet the child's unique needs, supported by services that will permit him `to benefit' from the instruction." Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 247 (5th Cir.1997) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982)).

Because the State of Texas receives federal education funding, all school districts within its borders must comply with the IDEA. See id. To meet the IDEA's strictures, the various school districts must provide each disabled student on their rolls with a FAPE. Id. The FAPE provided must be tailored to each disabled child's needs through an "individualized educational program" ("IEP"), which is a written statement prepared at a meeting attended by a "qualified" and "knowledgeable" school district representative, a teacher, the child's parents or guardians, and, when appropriate, the child. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). In Texas, the committee responsible for preparing an IEP is known as an Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee ("ARD Committee"). 19 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 89.1050; see Michael F., 118 F.3d at 247.

The IDEA provides a "comprehensive system of procedural safeguards" designed to promote compliance with its mandates. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 308, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (explaining the elaborate and highly specific procedural safeguards embodied in the IDEA); 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (outlining series of detailed procedural safeguards). Among these safeguards, the parents of the disabled child must be provided with "[a]n opportunity to present a complaint ... with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a [FAPE] to such child." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6). The IDEA also provides as follows:

Whenever a complaint has been received under subsection (b)(6) ... of this section, the parents or the local educational agency involved in such complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency, as determined by State law or by the State educational agency.

Id. § 1415(f)(1)(A).

When a state allows for these hearings to be conducted by a local educational agency, the IDEA permits "any party aggrieved by the findings and decision rendered in such a hearing" to appeal to the state's educational agency, which must then conduct an "impartial review of such decision" and "make an independent decision upon completion of such review." Id. § 1415(g).

After exhausting state administrative remedies, an aggrieved party under the IDEA accrues "the right to bring a civil action ... in a district court of the United States, without regard to the amount in controversy." Id. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Moreover, a party claiming entitlement to attorney fees under the IDEA may also file a claim in district court. Id. § 1415(i)(3).

Plaintiff brings her appeal from a December 7, 2007, Decision by the Special Education Hearing Officer ("Hearing Officer") which granted EPISD's Motion to Dismiss ("2007 Decision"). See Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 7. Defendant brings its appeal from a March 19, 2008, Decision by the Hearing Officer, which denied EPISD's counterclaim requesting an override of Plaintiff's refusal to consent to a reevaluation of her son's IEP ("2008 Decision"). See Def.'s Countercl. ¶¶ 39-46.

B. Facts

The following facts are gathered from the parties' pleadings; "Plaintiff's Appendix to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment: Statement of Facts" ("Plaintiffs Facts") (Doc. No. 20-4); "Defendant, El Paso ISD's Response to Proposed Undisputed Facts" ("Defendant's Facts") (Doc. No. 23-2); Defendant's "Proposed Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Defendant's Facts II") (Doc. No. 19-6);² the exhibits attached to the parties' submissions; and the Administrative Record ("Record").

A.L. is a minor and a student within the El Paso Independent School District ("Defendant" or "EPISD"). Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 1. At the beginning of October 2007, A.L. was a twelve-year-old student at Henderson Middle School. Id. ¶ 3. Prior to that time, A.L. had been identified with speech impairment, and had been receiving specialeducation services from EPISD since the third grade. Def.'s Countercl. and Third-Party Compl. ¶ 7.

On September 12, 2005, A.L. underwent a Speech/Language Evaluation to determine whether he met the eligibility criteria to qualify as a student with a language impairment. R. at 517. On October 3, 2005, an ARD Committee convened as part of an annual review to determine whether A.L. was still speech impaired and whether he needed special-education services. Pl.'s Facts ¶ 2. The Committee subsequently produced a report, in which the Committee determined that A.L. was speech impaired and needed, among other services, 60 minutes per week of speech-language pathology services, a "related service" pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A).³ R. at 517-520.

On October 5, 2006, the ADR Committee convened again to conduct its annual review of A.L.'s IEP. Facts ¶ 3. The Committee once again produced a report in which A.L. was found to meet eligibility criteria for speech impairment. Facts ¶ 3; R. at 547-49.⁴ The Committee further determined that A.L. continued to be entitled to 60 minutes per week of speechlanguage services.⁵

Shortly after the October 5, 2006, meeting, Plaintiff received a letter from Dr. Lorenzo Garcia, Superintendent for EISD. Facts ¶ 4; R. at 309. In the letter, Dr. Garcia stated that EPISD was experiencing a shortage of speech language pathologists that year, but that "compensatory services for sessions missed resulting from the prolonged absence or unavailability of service providers will be offered to students affected by this circumstance." R. at 309. The letter also stated that EPISD would convene an ARD Committee "to determine compensatory services due to your child" as well as to "identify the frequency and duration of these services as stipulated in your child's current IEP and will provide these services in an appropriate manner once providers are obtained." Id. The committee could consider "offering additional sessions during the day, after-school sessions, or speech camps during the summer." Id. Despite the assertions made in Dr. Garcia's letter, no additional ARD Committee meetings were convened on A.L.'s behalf to determine compensatory services for the 2006-07 school year. Facts ¶ 5. Nor was A.L. provided any extra speech sessions during the 2006-07 school year, and A.L. was not provided a speech camp in the summer of 2007. Id. ¶ 5.

On October 2, 2007, Plaintiff was mailed a notice of the annual ARD Committee meeting, which she subsequently signed her consent to attend. R. at 456-57. On October 5, 2007, the ARD Committee met for its annual review of A.L.'s IEP. Id. at 755-795.⁶ The minutes of...