Maroni v. Pemi-Baker Regional School Dist.

• Decision Date: 09 October 2003
• Docket Number: No. 03-1700.,No. 03-1407.,03-1407.,03-1700.
• Citation: 346 F.3d 247
• Parties: Michael D. MARONI, as parent and next friend of Michael M., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PEMI-BAKER REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Appellee. Michael D. Maroni, as parent and next friend of Michael M.; Margaret A. Maroni, as parent and next friend of Michael M. Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Plymouth School District, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

346 F.3d 247

Michael D. MARONI, as parent and next friend of Michael M., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PEMI-BAKER REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Appellee.

Michael D. Maroni, as parent and next friend of Michael M.; Margaret A. Maroni, as parent and next friend of Michael M. Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Plymouth School District, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 03-1407.

No. 03-1700.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard September 3, 2003.

Decided October 9, 2003.

Scott F. Johnson for appellants.

Diane M. Gorrow for appellees.

Colleen Cronin and Wendy Paget on brief for amici curiae Disability Rights Center, Inc., and National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, in support of appellants.

Before LYNCH, Circuit Judge, LIPEZ, Circuit Judge, and SILER,^* Senior Circuit Judge.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

Michael M. is a student with disabilities within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. That Act grants rights intended to lead school districts to provide disabled students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Id. § 1412(a)(1). Michael and his parents brought two federal lawsuits to assert rights under IDEA. Both suits were dismissed sua sponte by the district court because the parents proceeded without counsel. We hold that this was error and reverse.

I.

Michael M. was a middle school student in the Plymouth School District from 1998 to 2001 and then became a high school student in the Pemi-Baker Regional School District after 2001. In both school systems, he and his parents sought due process hearings under the Act regarding Michael's individualized education program (IEP) and the procedures employed to develop and implement it. Dissatisfied in each instance with the findings and decision reached in the hearings, the Maronis then sought judicial review under IDEA. They instituted suit in federal court, without counsel, against Plymouth on December 18, 2001, and then against Pemi-Baker on November 20, 2002. In the suit against Plymouth, the caption of the complaint included Michael M. and his parents, and in the suit against Pemi-Baker, it included Michael M. and his father. In each suit, Michael M.'s parent(s) purportedly sued as his next friend. Neither school district objected to the parent(s) bringing the cases on a pro se basis. Nonetheless, a magistrate judge for the District of New Hampshire, performing a screening function in pro se cases, concluded that Michael's father could not sue pro se as next friend under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 in the Pemi-Baker case. Michael's father then sought to amend their complaint to assert what he claimed were his own rights under IDEA. Pemi-Baker opposed the motion to amend, arguing that Michael's father had no individual claim under IDEA. The magistrate judge denied the motion to amend without discussion except a citation to Collinsgru v. Palmyra Board of Education, 161 F.3d 225 (3rd Cir.1998).¹ Adopting the magistrate judge's reasoning, the district court then dismissed the complaint without prejudice on January 23, 2003.

Michael's father filed a motion to reconsider on February 7, 2003. In the supporting affidavit, he admitted that the Maronis did not meet the financial need criteria for court-appointed counsel, but indicated that they had been unable to find a lawyer who would take the case on a pro bono or contingency basis. The court denied the motion on March 10, 2003.

On the same day, the same district court judge held that Michael's parents also could not proceed pro se in the suit against the Plymouth School District. The court stated that non-attorney parents could not appear pro se for their children in IDEA cases and that the case would be dismissed if Michael did not appear with counsel by April 18, 2003. Michael's parents, acting on his behalf as next friends, then filed a motion for the court to appoint counsel based on Michael's lack of financial resources. The court denied their motion without discussion. On April 28, 2003, the court dismissed the case because "no appearance [had] been filed on behalf of Michael M. by an attorney authorized to practice in this court."

The Maronis appeal the dismissal of both cases, arguing that the district court erred in prohibiting them from pursuing claims for procedural and substantive violations of IDEA without an attorney. In their brief, the Maronis also request that this court reverse the denial of appointment of counsel if it finds that they may not pursue their claims without a lawyer. This court consolidated the two appeals.

II.

Michael M. is a minor, as are most children with IDEA claims.² Were Michael M. an adult, he could proceed pro se by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which provides that "[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." Because of his minority, he is disqualified from representing himself. Here, his parents seek to do what Michael's age prevents him from doing.

The Maronis advance two themes as to why they should be permitted to proceed pro se. The first theme, which we will call a statutory joint rights theory, is that IDEA itself grants "parties aggrieved" the right to bring suit in federal court asserting statutory violations and that parents are "parties aggrieved." If parents are indeed parties under IDEA, they may then proceed pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The second theme, the common law next-friend theory, is that courts should create an exception exempting IDEA cases from the usual common law rule preventing non-attorney parents from proceeding pro se on behalf of their minor child.³

The issue is one of first impression for this court. Without addressing the issue before us, this court has referred to parents as "aggrieved parties" entitled to judicial review under IDEA. In Providence School Dep't v. Ana C., 108 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1997), we stated that "[u]nder the provisions of the IDEA, all aggrieved parties, school committees and parents alike, are entitled to judicial review." Id. at 4; see also Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 25 (1st Cir.2002) ("[After a due process hearing, a]ny aggrieved party can appeal the findings and decision of the hearing officer to the state educational agency. If the parent remains dissatisfied, she can bring a civil action in federal district court." (citations omitted) (emphasis added)). This court has also treated parents as having rights under IDEA. See Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35 v. Mr. & Mrs. R., On Their Own Behalf And On Behalf Of Their Son, S.R., 321 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir.2003) ("[P]arents ordinarily must exhaust their administrative remedies before appealing to a federal court...."); Weber v. Cranston Sch. Comm., 212 F.3d 41, 51 (1st Cir.2000) (finding parents' claims to be within the zone of interests protected under IDEA and citing IDEA's statement of statutory purpose, which specifies the statute's mission "to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected"); Kathleen H. v. Mass. Dep't of Educ., 154 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir.1998) (assuming without discussion that parents can be named plaintiffs in their individual capacity in an IDEA suit). These rights have included not only procedural but also substantive rights. See Maine Sch. Dist., 321 F.3d at 17-18 (referring to parents' rights in the context of a compensatory education claim, which entitles a child to further special education services under IDEA to compensate for past deprivations); Kathleen H., 154 F.3d at 13 (involving judicial review of substantive claims raised in a due process hearing).

Although this court has not directly considered the issue before us, the legal landscape is not empty on this question. Two circuits have interpreted IDEA as granting parents the right to sue pro se for procedural violations. Collinsgru, 161 F.3d at 233 ("[IDEA] clearly grants parents specific procedural rights, which they may enforce in administrative proceedings, as well as in federal court."); Wenger v. Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., 146 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) ("[The parent of a child with special needs] is, of course, entitled to represent himself on his claims that his own rights as a parent under the IDEA were violated by the [school district's] failure to follow appropriate procedures."). Collinsgru further held, over a strong dissent, that parents could not sue pro se for "substantive" claims (i.e., denial of FAPE). We read Wenger as not discussing this latter issue, although it does prohibit parents from proceeding pro se on behalf of their children as next friends. See Wenger, 146 F.3d at 124 (relying on the common-law rule against non-attorney parents representing their children pro se in civil suits). In addition, two other circuits have held without analysis that parents may not sue pro se on behalf of their children under IDEA. See Navin v. Park Ridge Sch. Dist. 64, 270 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir.2001) (citing without further explanation cases in other circuits); Devine v. Indian River County Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581-82 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating without explanation that "there is no indication that Congress intended to [allow parental representation in] federal court" for IDEA claims). Conversely, one circuit has assumed, without discussion, that parents may bring their own substantive claims in district court. Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir County Bd. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380, 383 (4th Cir.2000) (treating parents as within the "parties aggrieved" requirement of IDEA because 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) provides that "[a] party that is unsatisfied with the state review officer's decision has further recourse in either federal or state court" and the parents were "dissatisfied" with the officer's decision regarding their claims that their daughter was denied FAPE).⁴

...