Bradley v. Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Schs.

JACOB “JACK” BRADLEY, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS

Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-00450-GNS-CHL

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

April 19, 2022

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Jefferson County Public Schools (DN 20). The motion is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The Complaint alleges that JCPS identified Jack-who resided with his parents in Jefferson County, Kentucky, within the boundaries of JCPS-as a student with disabilities who required special education and related services under the IDEA.^[1] (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 15, 16). Further, JCPS identified Jack as a gifted student-under KRS 157.200-who was entitled to a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) which included special education and related services pursuant to his IEP and gifted student services plan (“GSSP”). (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 17). JCPS implemented Jack's IEP and GSSP during his 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19).

The Bradleys claim that Jack took a dual credit University of Louisville course, and his IEP was implemented by JCPS during this course during the 2016-17 school year. (Compl. ¶ 20). Additionally, with the encouragement of JCPS teachers and administrators, and with the knowledge of his JCPS Admission and Release Committee (“ARC”), Jack applied to the Craft Academy for Excellence in Science and Mathematics (“Craft Academy”), an accelerated residential school for exceptional eleventh and twelfth grade students, hosted by and located at MSU in Morehead, Kentucky. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 21-22, 26). He was accepted to participate in the Craft Academy. (Compl. ¶ 21).

The Complaint asserts that Jack Bradley was dually enrolled as a high school student at duPont Manual High School within JCPS and Craft Academy during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 10, 22, 26). Jack's IEP purportedly included a transition plan that required a residential college experience, and JCPS initially agreed to implement his IEP while he attended the Craft Academy. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 28). The Complaint asserts, shortly thereafter, the KDE directed JCPS not to implement the IEP while Jack attended the Craft Academy. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 28). Additionally, MSU refused to implement the IEP while Jack attended the Craft Academy. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 29). As a result, Daniel and Judith Bradley were allegedly forced to provide for the special education and related services called for in Jack's IEP at their own cost. (Compl. ¶ 1).

The Complaint also contends that Daniel and Judith Bradley sought relief by utilizing the IDEA's dispute resolution procedures and requested a due process hearing. (Compl ¶¶ 1, 6, 33-34). The due process hearing officer reportedly dismissed their claims against JCPS, KDE, and MSU without conducting a due process hearing. (Compl ¶¶ 1, 35). On appeal, the Exceptional Children Appeals Board (“ECAB”) upheld in part and reversed in part the hearing officer's decision. (Compl ¶¶ 1, 36, 37). The Bradleys seek a de novo review of these decisions and their rights. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 49-50). Additionally, the Bradleys request an award of damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries they sustained as a result of violations of their constitutional, and statutory rights. (Compl. 11-12).

B. Procedural History

The Bradleys filed this lawsuit claiming the denial of FAPE and procedural protections under IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.), as well as violations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-64). JCPS moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Bradleys' claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision.

II. JURISDICTION

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, and 2202; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(A); 42 U.S.C § 1983.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. This “plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotations omitted).

When considering a defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court will “accept all the [plaintiff's] factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the [plaintiff].” Hill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 409 F.3d 710, 716 (6th Cir. 2005). “A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). Thus, to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, “[the] complaint must contain (1) ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible,' (2) more than ‘a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements, ' and (3) allegations that suggest a ‘right to relief above a speculative level.'” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Ultimately, this inquiry is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

B. Consideration of Documents Not Attached to the Complaint

Generally, courts may not consider matters outside the pleadings in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss except when the motion is treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Stein v. HHGregg, Inc., 873 F.3d 523, 528 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623, 640 (6th Cir. 2016)); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). As the Sixth Circuit has noted, however:

[A]court may consider exhibits attached to the complaint, public records, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to dismiss, so long as they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims contained therein, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.

Gavitt, 835 F.3d at 640 (citations omitted).

The parties have filed numerous exhibits pertaining to the pending motions, some of which can and cannot be considered:

1. Attached to JCPS' motion, as an exhibit, are copies of two orders issued by the KDE Division of Learning Services that grant motions to dismiss filed by KDE and MSU, respectively. (JCPS' Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1, DN 20-1). These two orders are attached to the Complaint, referred to therein, and central to the claims contained in the Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 35, 38-40, DN 1; Compl. Ex. 1, at 1-5 DN 1-2; Compl. Ex. 2, at 1-5, DN 13). For these reasons, the Court may consider the exhibit without converting JCPS' motion to one for summary judgment. See Gavitt, 835 F.3d at 640 (citations omitted).

2. Attached to the Bradleys' response are hundreds of pages of documents labeled Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 43 and Exhibit E. (Pls.' Resp. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Exs., DN 23-1). Only Exhibit 3, which is a copy of the Final Decision and Order of the Exceptional Children Appeals Board, is attached to the Complaint and referred to therein. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 36-37, 41-48; Compl. Ex. 4, at 1-16, DN 1-5; Pls.' Resp. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Ex. 3, at 8-23, DN 23-1). Exhibit E, a copy of the KDE Division of Learning Services Order denying JCPS' motion to dismiss, is not attached to the Complaint but it is referred to in the Complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 38-40; Pls.' Resp. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Ex. E, at 28186, DN 23-1). Both Exhibit 3 and Exhibit E are central to the claims contained in the Complaint. (See Compl. ¶¶ 35-48). Accordingly, the Court may consider Exhibit 3 and Exhibit E without converting JCPS' motion to one for summary judgment. See Gavitt, 835 F.3d at 640 (citations omitted).

3. Exhibit 1 to the Bradleys' response, is a September 22 2017, Opinion of the Attorney General of Kentucky (“OAG 17-021”) that is posted on the Attorney General's official public website.^[2] (Pls.' Resp. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1, at 1-5, DN 231). The Court may consider OAG 17-021 and assess the persuasiveness of this nonbinding opinion without converting JCPS' motion to one for summary judgment. See Williams v. Lasik Inst., LLC, No. 2:20-CV-02402-JPM-tmp, 2021 WL 4482968, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2021) (In addressing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court acknowledged that opinions of the Tennessee Attorney General are not binding but are entitled to deference.); Marsilio v. Vigluicci, 924 F.Supp.2d 837, 864-65 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (while considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court found an Ohio Attorney General Opinion instructive and persuasive); ...