Crockett v. Dist. of Columbia

JAWANZAH CROCKETT, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-1357 (RDM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

April 10, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jawanzah Crockett, proceeding pro se, filed suit against the District of Columbia and nine employees of D.C. Public Schools ("DCPS") alleging that they violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., the D.C. Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq., the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, the D.C. Student Grievance Procedures, 5-B DCMR § 2405, and the D.C. common law in connection with his education at Wilson High School from September 2011 to June 2015. See Dkt. 1. The Court previously dismissed Crockett's claim against Defendants under the IDEA on grounds of issue preclusion. Dkt. 17 at 18. Defendants now move for summary judgment with respect to Crockett's ten remaining claims. Dkt. 26. In addition, Daniel Shea, the Instructional Superintendent of DCPS, separately moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him for failure to state a claim. Id. at 15-16.

For the reasons explained in this memorandum opinion, the Court will GRANT Defendant Shea's motion to dismiss and will GRANT the remaining Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The record before the Court is unusually thin, consisting mostly of Plaintiff's deposition at which he could not remember the answers to many questions and at which he promised to provide further discovery, but later failed to do so. See Dkt. 26. To provide context, the Court will set forth the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint but, when ultimately considering Defendants' motion for summary judgment, will give weight to only those allegations that are supported by some evidence.

Crockett began attending Wilson High School ("Wilson H.S.") in the fall of 2011. Dkt. 1 at 3 (Compl. ¶ 15). He struggled during that first year, and his mother sought testing to determine whether he might be eligible for special education services. Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). An accommodations plan drafted under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, led to his improved performance in his sophomore year. Id. (Compl. ¶ 16). Still, miscommunications and disagreements about the plan hampered its implementation, and Crockett's mother continued to push for further evaluation of her son. Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-24). Eventually, the DCPS conceded that Crockett was entitled to an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") under the IDEA. Id. (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22). On April 7, 2014, during the spring of Crockett's junior year, Wilson H.S. finally issued the IEP, id. (Compl. ¶ 22).

Before challenging the school's compliance with the IEP, Crockett's mother filed a due process complaint with the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education ("OSSE"), challenging the DCPS's failure to offer Crockett an IEP earlier in his tenure at Wilson H.S. See Dkt. 12-8 (First OSSE Hearing Report). The OSSE hearing officer concluded in December 2014 that the DCPS had failed to provide Crockett a "free appropriate public education"—or a"FAPE"—from October 11, 2012, to April 7, 2014. Id. at 3, 8-10. As compensatory education, the OSSE hearing officer ordered the DCPS to provide Crockett 200 hours of independent tutoring, 20 hours of behavior counseling, and reimbursement for prior tutoring expenses. Id. at 10. Crockett has not challenged the DCPS's compliance with that award.

During the 2014-2015 school year, Crockett was initially placed into a self-contained classroom (one containing only students receiving special education services) for math, as contemplated by his IEP. Dkt. 12-7 at 5 (Second OSSE Hearing Report). Because he was substantially more advanced than other students in the self-contained classroom, Crockett's special education teacher recommended that he be returned to the general education classroom for math. Id. At his mother's request, that switch was made. Id. Crockett passed both math classes he took his senior year. Id.

By contrast, Crockett struggled in Spanish. Despite his mother's repeated efforts to coordinate with his teachers to ensure that his assignments were turned in, he ultimately failed that class. Id. Crockett alleges that this failing grade was the product of a host of missteps by Defendants, including their declining to provide adequate support and accommodations, "denying [his] parent access to teachers in order to assist in organizing . . . and keeping track of [his] assignments," Dkt. 1 at 13 (Compl. ¶ 87), "add[ing] more work," failing to count completed work toward his grade, "lowering his grade due to late submission" of work, id. at 18 (Compl. ¶ 115); and falsifying attendance records, id. at 17-18 (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 118-25). Because he failed Spanish, Crockett was not permitted to graduate with his class and was required to repeat the course over the summer. Dkt. 12-7 at 5.

After receiving notice of his failing grade in Spanish, Crockett took two actions. First, he lodged another due process complaint with the OSSE. See Dkt. 12-7. The complaint alleged (1)that his mother was not timely provided with his most recent IEP and (2) that the school's decision to return him to the math general education classroom at his mother's request had not relieved the school of its obligation to provide him with additional educational services in math. See id. at 3. Although those claims had nothing to do with his Spanish grade, Crockett sought compensatory education in the form of Spanish tutoring, funding for the Spanish summer school course he was taking to graduate, and enrollment in a college preparatory course. Id. at 9. A due process hearing was held on July 23, 2015. Id. at 2. On August 7, 2015, the OSSE hearing officer rejected Crockett's first claim but concluded that Wilson H.S.'s failure to provide Crockett with the additional math support contemplated by his IEP violated the IDEA. Id. at 6-8. The hearing officer declined to direct the Wilson H.S. provide the relief that Crockett proposed because it did not "correlate[]" with that omission and, instead, ordered that Crockett receive "20 hours of independent behavior counseling." Id. at 9-10.

Second, Crockett brought suit against the DCPS, Wilson H.S., and various school administrators and teachers in D.C. Superior Court, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to compel Wilson H.S. to allow him to "pick up [his] cap and gown, participate in graduation rehearsal[,] and graduate on June 13 with [his] class." Dkt. 12-2 at 1 (Superior Court Compl.). Crockett's complaint did not identify a particular cause of action, but it did allege that the defendants in that action had failed to provide him with "accommodations" and had failed to act in a timely manner on "grade disputes" that he had raised. Id. The Superior Court Complaint sought to permit him to graduate with his class and thus left little doubt that Crockett's allegations were focused, in large part, on his failing grade in Spanish. Id. The Superior Court denied both Crockett's motion for a temporary restraining order and his motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 12-3. The court ultimately construed Crockett's complaint toassert a claim under the IDEA and dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by the IDEA. Dkt. 12-5 at 5-6. Crockett appealed that decision, but the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal as moot because the injunctive relief he sought—an order permitting him to participate in the graduation ceremony—could no longer be granted because the ceremony had already occurred. Dkt. 13-1 at 1-2.

B. Procedural Background

On June 28, 2016, Crockett filed the present action. Dkt. 1. Five of the defendants in this case were also named in the earlier suit: the DCPS, Wilson H.S.'s assistant principal for special education, the school's acting principal, Crockett's Spanish teacher, and his special education case manager. Compare Dkt. 12-1 at 1, with Dkt. 1 at 2-3. To this list, the present suit adds six new defendants: the DCPS "Instructional Superintendent managing Cluster VIII schools," a second Spanish instructor at Wilson H.S., Wilson H.S.'s "assistant principal for 2015 summer school and attendance supervisor," an attendance counselor at Wilson H.S., an AP English teacher at the school, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Dkt. 1 at 1-3. Unlike his prior suit, which sought only injunctive relief, this action seeks only damages. Dkt. 1 at 21-22.

Defendants moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to dismiss certain of the counts in the complaint, including Count II, which was brought under the IDEA. See Dkt. 12. The Court granted that motion with respect to Count II, holding that Crockett's Superior Court suit had preclusive effect with respect to whether Crockett had exhausted his administrative remedies as a prerequisite to bringing an IDEA action. See Dkt. 17. The Court also dismissed Crockett's claims against the Mayor on the ground that she is a not a proper defendant and, in any event, Crockett had explained that he was only attempting to serve the Mayor's office incompliance with D.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, id. at 7 n.2, and ordered that the District of Columbia be substituted for the DCPS on the ground that subordinate agencies within the D.C. government are not generally subject to suit, id. at 20-21. The Court denied the Defendants' motion in all other respects. Id. at 21.

Having now completed discovery, Defendants move for summary judgment on all ten remaining counts and move to dismiss all claims against Daniel Shea for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 26.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is available "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to...