Miener v. SP. SCHOOL DIST. OF ST. LOUIS CTY., MO., 79-1050C(1)

• Decision Date: 08 May 1985
• Docket Number: No. 79-1050C(1),82-1836C(2).,79-1050C(1)
• Parties: Terri Ann MIENER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants. Terri Ann MIENER, etc., Plaintiff, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, et al., Third-Party Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

607 F. Supp. 1425

Terri Ann MIENER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants.

Terri Ann MIENER, etc., Plaintiff, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Nos. 79-1050C(1), 82-1836C(2).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

May 8, 1985.

Albert J. Haller, Steven L. Leonard, Haller, Leonard & Tripp, P.C., Clayton, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Margaret Keate, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for defendants State Dept. of Elem. and Sec. Educ. and State Dept. of Mental Health.

Ruth A. Przybeck, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, Mo., for defendants State Dept. of Elem. and Sec. Educ. and State Dept. of Mental Health.

Timothy K. Kellett, Eric M. Schmitz, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant/third-party plaintiff Special School Dist. of St. Louis County.

MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, Chief Judge.

These cases are now before this Court for a ruling on two (2) motions. First, in No. 79-1050C(1), defendant Special School District of St. Louis County, Missouri (hereinafter "SSD") moves to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Second, in Nos. 79-1050C(1) and 82-1836C(2), plaintiffs move to consolidate both cases before this Court. Because SSD's motion to dismiss is granted, the second amended complaint in No. 79-1050C(1) is dismissed and the motion to consolidate is denied.

Plaintiffs' claims and the underlying facts of this case have been discussed in several prior opinions in this case. See Miener v. State of Missouri, 673 F.2d 969 (8th Cir.1982); Miener v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 580 F.Supp. 562 (E.D.Mo.1984); Miener v. State of Missouri, 498 F.Supp. 944 (E.D.Mo.1980). In Special School District of St. Louis, County, this Court held that plaintiffs could not proceed with their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.¹ However, this Court also granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint asserting damages under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., (hereinafter "Rehabilitation Act"). Several months later, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. The legal sufficiency of said complaint is at issue herein.

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is a claim for declaratory, injunctive and damages relief for "discriminatory deprivation of plaintiff's right to education" under the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Terri Ann Miener was and is in need of special education services and that defendant SSD has, at all applicable times, provided a free, adequate and appropriate education for many of its students. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint further alleges that on February 4, 1977, SSD received a report that Terri Ann Miener was learning disabled, behaviorally disordered, visionally impaired and orthopedically handicapped. Plaintiffs allege that beginning on or about February 4, 1977 and thereafter, SSD "has failed and refused to provide a free, appropriate and non-discriminatory public school education to Terri Ann Miener, has excluded her from participation in its programs and has denied her access to its programs solely by reason of her handicap, all in violation of the Rehabilitation Act." As a result of SSD's alleged violation of the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs allege that they were required to expend funds for Terri Ann Miener's education and that SSD was obligated to pay said amounts. From June 23, 1977, through approximately April 15, 1980, plaintiff Terri Ann Miener was placed in the Youth Center Program of St. Louis State School and Hospital, an agency of the Missouri Department of Mental Health. Subsequent to April 15, 1980, plaintiff Terri Ann Miener was placed at the Brown Schools Ranch Treatment Center located in Austin, Texas, and she currently remains there. The relief sought by plaintiffs includes, inter alia, a declaration that defendants' acts violated the Rehabilitation Act, prospective compensatory services to overcome the effects of any past discriminatory denial of special educational services, $1,000,000.00 for the physical injuries received by Terri Ann Miener during the period from February 4, 1977 to April 15, 1980, $250,000.00 in damages for defendants' discriminatory denial of Terri Ann Miener's right to a full and adequate education, and $400,000.00 for reimbursement of sums expended by plaintiffs for the education of Terri Ann Miener.

In passing on a motion to dismiss, a court is required to view the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). A motion to dismiss will not be granted merely because the complaint does not state every element necessary for recovery with precision. 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1216 at 120 (1969). A complaint is sufficient if it "contains allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial." Id. at 122-23. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 101-102.

SSD argues that plaintiffs' second amended complaint must be dismissed, because the rights asserted by plaintiffs are rights protected by the Education of all Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (hereinafter "EHA"), and that the Rehabilitation Act is not available to enforce rights protected by the EHA. SSD's motion relies primarily on Smith v. Robinson, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984).

This Court recently undertook an examination of the Smith case, as well as the companion case of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3371, 82 L.Ed.2d 664 (1984), in Yaris v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 599 F.Supp. 926, 932-36 (E.D.Mo. 1984). In Yaris, the issue before this Court was whether plaintiffs were entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the Rehabilitation Act and various constitutional provisions.² In Yaris, on the basis of Smith and Tatro, this Court held that the plaintiffs therein were not entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the Rehabilitation Act, "because the relief obtained by plaintiffs was available under the EHA...." Yaris, 599 F.Supp. at 935. Because SSD's motion essentially requires this Court to again apply Smith and Tatro, this Court's discussion of Smith and Tatro in Yaris bears repeating, as follows:

In Smith, the parents of a child suffering from cerebral palsy contested a school district's refusal to fund the child's placement in a special education program. The parents challenged the constitutionality of the procedure utilized to make the school district's decision and the substance of that decision. Their suit in federal District Court sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on state law; the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq.; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court declared that the procedure violated federal due process requirements and that, as a matter of state law, defendants were obligated to pay for the child's education. Although the District Court did not decide plaintiffs' federal statutory and constitutional claims relating to his substantive challenge, it awarded attorney's fees to plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1978, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 795, because the unaddressed federal claims were substantial and nonfrivolous. On plaintiffs' appeal from the Court of Appeals' reversal of the attorney's fees award, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to fees under either § 1988 or § 505, because the relief obtained by plaintiffs was available under the EHA.

The Supreme Court in Smith reasoned that Congress intended the EHA to be the exclusive avenue for litigating a handicapped child's right to a free appropriate public education. Smith, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. at 3468. The Court further reasoned that by creating a comprehensive remedial scheme in the EHA, which did not include a right to attorneys' fees, Congress did not intend for litigants to circumvent that scheme by bringing EHA claims together with analogous § 1983 and Rehabilitation Act claims and then claiming attorneys' fees under the latter two (2) statutes. Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3469, 3472. With respect to the Smith plaintiffs' equal protection claim under § 1983, the Court concluded:

that where the EHA is available to a handicapped child asserting a right to a free appropriate public education, based either on the EHA or on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the EHA is the exclusive avenue through which the child and his parents or guardian can pursue their claim.

Id. at 3470.

With respect to the Rehabilitation Act claim, the Court employed a similar, but different, analysis. Id. at 3472. The Court noted that although the Rehabilitation Act and the EHA are different substantive statutes, both statutes, "as applied to the right of a handicapped child to a public education, have been interpreted to be strikingly similar." Id. However, the Court stated that "the significant difference between the two, as applied to special education claims, is that the substantive and procedural rights assumed to be guaranteed by both statutes are specifically required only by the EHA." Id. (emphasis added). From this specificity, the Court concluded that "Congress did not intend a handicapped child to be able to circumvent the requirements or supplement the remedies of the EHA by resort to the general antidiscrimination provision of § 504." Id. at 3473. The

...