Payne v. Board of Educ., Cleveland City Schools

• Decision Date: 21 August 1996
• Docket Number: No. 94-6592,94-6592
• Citation: 88 F.3d 392
• Parties: 110 Ed. Law Rep. 968, 17 A.D.D. 971 Daniel PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 392

88 F.3d 392

110 Ed. Law Rep. 968, 17 A.D.D. 971

Daniel PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, CLEVELAND CITY SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-6592.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 22, 1996.

Decided July 9, 1996.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug.

21, 1996. ^*

Tricia Dennis (argued and briefed), Farr, Dennis & Cordwell, Chattanooga, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John D. Kitch (argued and briefed), Kitch & Garman, Nashville, TN, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: MARTIN and RYAN, Circuit Judges; KATZ, District Judge. ^**

MARTIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KATZ, District Judge, joined. RYAN, J. (pp. 400-04), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Daniel Payne appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Cleveland City Schools Board of Education and the dismissal of his request for attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq.

I.

Payne is a minor with a history of serious emotional and behavioral problems who was enrolled in the Cleveland, Tennessee school system until April 1992, when a juvenile court ordered him to the Church of God for Children in Sevier County, Tennessee. After his discharge from that facility for disciplinary reasons, Payne was placed in the New Life Group Home in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Upon his release in December 1992, Payne sought to re-enroll in the Cleveland school system.

On January 4, 1993, Cleveland City Schools requested permission from the juvenile court to evaluate Payne for special education purposes. ¹ Permission was granted on January 5, and an evaluation was performed that day. Immediately afterwards, a letter was hand-delivered to Payne's mother stating that Payne was required to comply with school attendance laws, noting that Payne's April 1992 individualized educational program was still in effect, and offering a multidisciplinary team meeting to develop an appropriate individualized educational program for Payne. On January 7, a multidisciplinary team meeting was held and Payne's mother agreed to a temporary individualized educational program that provided for home schooling.

On January 12, a juvenile court hearing was held, during which the vice principal of Cleveland Junior High School recommended that Payne be placed in a wilderness camp. Upon that recommendation, the judge adjourned the hearing and instructed Payne's mother to obtain legal representation. On January 15, the interim individualized educational program was continued by agreement of the parties. One week later, the juvenile court held another hearing, where Payne's counsel asked the court to delay ruling on state-custody placement because counsel planned to request an administrative due process hearing with respect to Payne's educational needs. The court declined this request on the ground that Payne's placement by the court was collateral to the school system's educational obligations to Payne, although it indicated that more information regarding his psychiatric condition was necessary before it could rule on placement.

On January 22, the school system's Director of Special Education offered to hold another multidisciplinary team meeting. Two days later, a letter was sent to Payne's mother advising her that the school system had been pursuing educational placements for Payne, stating that such placements should be discussed during a multidisciplinary team meeting, indicating that formal notification of the meeting would follow, and offering the school system's cooperation in attempting to find solutions to the existing problems. On January 26, formal notification that a multidisciplinary team meeting would be held on February 4 was hand-delivered to Payne's mother. That same day, counsel for Payne mailed a request for a due process hearing to Cleveland City Schools. The request, which stated simply that its purpose was to determine whether the school system was providing Payne with a "free and appropriate education" as required by law, arrived January 28. In early February, the multidisciplinary team meeting and interim individualized educational program were continued by agreement of the parties.

On September 7, 1993, the multidisciplinary team meeting convened and developed a partial individualized educational program for Payne. On September 20, the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the due process hearing entered an order stating that Payne's request for a hearing would be dismissed if the parties failed to enter an order of compromise and settlement by September 28. That date passed, but on October 26, the multidisciplinary team developed a final individualized educational program for Payne that included provisions for educating him in a regular classroom setting with certain modifications, providing counseling, and permitting consultive services. Payne claims Cleveland City Schools made certain concessions in the final individualized educational program that it had not made earlier. On November 10, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the due process hearing request without reaching the merits of Payne's claim.

On November 24, Payne filed a complaint pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B), the attorneys' fees provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, against the Cleveland City Schools Board of Education seeking $27,000. In turn, the school system filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Payne did not qualify as a "prevailing party" under the statute, and therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On November 3, 1994, the district court granted Cleveland City Schools' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Payne's claim for attorneys' fees. This timely appeal followed.

II.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act guarantees "free appropriate public education" for disabled children. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). The Act requires local education officials, teachers, and parents to develop a written individualized educational program for each disabled child detailing his or her level of performance, as well as goals and services to be provided by the school system. Krichinsky v. Knox County Schools, 963 F.2d 847, 849 (6th Cir.1992). A parent or guardian who feels the requirements of an individualized educational program, or any other statutory requirement, are not being met has "an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing which shall be conducted by the State educational agency ... as determined by State law or by the State educational agency." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2). An aggrieved party who is not satisfied with the results of the administrative proceedings may "bring a civil action with respect to the complaint ... in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). Furthermore, "[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a child or youth with a disability who is the prevailing party." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B).

This circuit has held that a parent or guardian who has "prevailed" at the administrative level and is seeking an award of attorneys' fees may file a separate suit in federal court for the limited purpose of recovering those fees. Eggers v. Bullitt County School Dist., 854 F.2d 892, 894 (6th Cir.1988). Mindful of this fact and the rule that reported panel opinions are binding on subsequent panels of this court, United States v. Gilliam, 979 F.2d 436, 437 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1034, 113 S.Ct. 1856, 123 L.Ed.2d 478 (1993), we express our concern as an initial matter that Congress may not have intended for this court to have jurisdiction over a claim for attorneys' fees filed by an individual who obtained no resolution on the merits of his or her claim at the administrative level. A commonsensical reading of the statutory language involved would appear to indicate that a party such as Payne, whose administrative claim is dismissed without a resolution on the merits, and who does not challenge or seek enforcement of an administrative decision in federal court, may not bring a separate cause of action in district court solely for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not define the term "prevailing party," or effectively limit the instances in which an alleged "prevailing party" may bring a separate claim for attorneys' fees in federal court. We feel the statute is not clear on this issue, and express our frustration at the "semantic strain" involved in interpreting Section 1415(e)(4)(B) as encompassing legal services provided at the administrative level regardless of whether the merits of a claim were reached or a subsequent judicial proceeding was had. See Brown v. Griggsville Com. Unit School Dist., 12 F.3d 681, 683 (7th Cir.1993) (discussing whether a district court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit under Section 1415(e) where no judicial hearing follows an administrative proceeding, and concluding that it does). Despite the lack of clarity on this issue, we accept that there is vested jurisdiction in this court to review Payne's claim for attorneys' fees, and will decide this appeal using the same basic procedures employed by the district court.

III.

Before a plaintiff is eligible to recover attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, he or she must have "prevailed" in an action or proceeding brought under the statute. A plaintiff must cross this " 'statutory threshold' of prevailing party status" before a district court may consider awarding attorneys' fees. See Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 789, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 1492, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989) (discussing statutory...