Greene Cnty. Tech Sch. Dist. v. MW

GREENE COUNTY TECH SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. MW, an adult, and CARLA WILSON, mother of MW DEFENDANTS

Case No. 3:17-cv-00047-KGB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

May 31, 2020

ORDER

Before the Court is the status of this case. Previously, on March 31, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting plaintiff Greene County Tech School District's ("the District") motion to dismiss with respect to a claim for attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and denying the District's motion with respect to the counterclaim and third-party complaint filed by defendants MW, an adult, and Carla Wilson, mother of MW (collectively, "the Wilsons") (Dkt. No. 32).¹ In that Order, the Court denied the District's motion to dismiss the Wilsons's counterclaim and third-party complaint because of the limited record and briefing submitted by the parties (Id., at 14).

By separate Order, the Court requested the parties to brief the law and identify the record facts related to the Wilsons's remaining claims in the counterclaim and third-party complaint (Dkt. No. 33). The parties complied with the Court's briefing schedule (Dkt. Nos. 34-36). For thefollowing reasons, the Court now grants the District's motion to dismiss the Wilsons's counterclaim and third-party complaint. The Wilsons's request for relief is denied, and the Court dismisses this action.

I. Background

A. Preliminary Injunctive Relief

At the time this litigation commenced, the Wilsons had filed a special education due process complaint against the District with the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE"), Special Education Division, Case Number H-17-20 (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 2). The District filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the Wilsons in this Court seeking, in part, "an injunction from this court prohibiting Wilson from denying MW access to her education by preventing District from receiving essential medical information from MW's PCP and mandating that Wilson take necessary steps to release the medical information to District and to permit MW's attendance at school." (Id., ¶ 10). In its complaint, the District stated:

District desires for MW to attend school but is unable to feed MW because critical medical information is being withheld by Wilson on behalf of MW. Wilson will not allow MW to attend school unless District feeds MW without the benefit of this medical information. District seeks an injunction from this court against MW and Wilson mandating that this medical information be released to District in order that District may feed MW safely at school.

(Id., ¶ 3).

In response to the District's complaint, the Wilsons filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint (collectively, "counterclaim") (Dkt. No. 13). In their counterclaim, the Wilsons name as defendants the District; Gene Weeks, Superintendent of Schools; Chad Jordan, High School Principal; and Tammy Birmingham, Special Education Director (collectively, "defendants"). The Wilsons raise three causes of action: (1) liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants forviolation of the stay-put provision of the IDEA² as an alleged denial of procedural and substantive due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (Id., ¶¶ 47-70); (2) liability under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., against the District, claiming unlawful discrimination based on a disability (Id., ¶¶ 71-86); and (3) liability under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, against the District, alleging unlawful discrimination based on a disability (Id., ¶¶ 87-97). At no time have the Wilsons moved to amend their counterclaim. In their counterclaim, the Wilsons state that "[t]his case involves the District's actions in refusing to implement [MW's] [individualized educational plan ("IEP")]; in refusing to allow [MW] access to any educational services; and in refusing to implement the Stay Put Order issued by the Due Process Hearing Officer." (Id., ¶ 22).

In their counterclaim, the Wilsons request compensatory damages "in an amount sufficient to fully compensate [the Wilsons] for their injuries, damages, and losses"; all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988; enforcement of the stay-put order and "appropriate compensatory relief"; declaratory and injunctive relief against the District to "redress their systemic violations of law"; and that the Court retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Court's orders (Id. at 28). The Wilsons also requested a preliminary injunction ordering the District to allow MW to return to school, to implement the services and supports on MW's IEP, and to allow access to a private healthcare aide for MW (Dkt. No. 17, at 9).

On April 6, 2017, the Court held an evidentiary hearing at which: (1) the District withdrew its then-pending motion to dismiss without objection; (2) the District agreed to follow the stay-putorder entered by the ADE hearing officer in Case No. H-17-20 (Dkt. No. 17-2); (3) the parties agreed to reserve the issue of attorneys' fees associated with their cross-motions for injunctive relief; and (4) the parties agreed that the Court would retain jurisdiction of the action (Dkt. No. 25, at 1). Based on the parties' agreement, the Court denied as moot the then-pending cross-motions for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 24). In this Court's Order from May 4, 2017, the Court acknowledged "that the parties have reserved the issue of attorneys' fees associated with their cross-motions for injunctive relief." (Dkt. No. 25, at 1). In that Order, the Court retained jurisdiction "over any disputes that should arise regarding the terms or conditions of the stay-put order issued by the ADE hearing officer." (Id., at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 17-2)).

B. ADE Final Decision And Order

The parties continued to pursue these matters before the ADE. On November 3, 2017, the hearing officer entered a Final Decision and Order in the ADE, Special Education Unit, Case No. H-17-27 ("ADE Final Order") (Dkt. No. 26-1). In the ADE Final Order, the hearing officer explained that the Wilsons's claims, in alleging that the District denied a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") to MW, specifically asserted, among other allegations, that the District failed:

12. To provide feeding services as required by the Student's special needs;

13. To appropriately implement the services on the Student's IEP;

14. To provide the Student with any educational services since October 24, 2016; and

15. By violating the Stay Put provisions of the IDEA since January 9, 2017.

(Id., at 2).

The Wilsons sought as relief, in part: "For the Parent [to] be declared to have exhausted her administrative remedies as to her § 504 claims." (Id., at 4). However, the hearing officer explained:

Issues raised by the Petitioner in her request for a due process hearing under the IDEA that were decided by the hearing officer as non-judiciable included allegations that the Respondent engaged in actions in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These issues were dismissed from being heard by pre-hearing order issued on April 18, 2017.

(Id., at 4).

After a multi-day hearing at which the Wilsons and the District presented evidence, the hearing officer found "in part for the District and in part for the Parent" and awarded the Wilsons limited relief (Id., at 55). The hearing officer ordered the following:

1. Upon receipt of this order, but no later than November 30, 2017, the Parent will provide the District with the necessary documentation in order for Easter Seals to conduct an adaptive communication evaluation and any assistive technology evaluations they deem appropriate to assist the Student in the classroom as well as in implementation of the associated related services.

2. Upon receipt of this order the Parent will sign consent for District personnel responsible for the health and safety of the Student to receive directions on types of foods and how best to assist with feeding as well [as] administer prescribed medications for the Student.

3. Upon receipt of this order, but no later than November 30, 2017, the District will submit the CIRCUIT request for Easter Seals to conduct the augmentative communication and assistive technology evaluations as noted in number (1) above.

4. Upon receipt of this order, but no later than January 5, 2018, the District will conduct a facilitated IEP conference to develop an IEP for the Student to complete classes necessary for her to receive a high school diploma. The Parent will not dictate which District personnel will be present to assist in the development of the IEP.

5. Should the Parent fail to comply with item one (1) above the District will still be obligated to conduct the facilitated IEP conference as ordered in item three (3), and develop an IEP based on the best information available as of January 5, 2018.

(Id., at 55-56).

Under the IDEA, a party aggrieved by the findings and decision of the hearing officer has 90 days from the date of the decision to bring a civil action in either federal district court or a statecourt of competent jurisdiction. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). Neither the District nor the Wilsons filed such an appeal.

C. Maintaining This Action

On May 10, 2018, the District filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which the parties briefed (Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 30). By prior Order, this Court granted the District's motion to dismiss any claim for attorneys' fees under the IDEA but requested further briefing from the parties as to several remaining issues (Dkt. Nos. 32, 33). By separate Order, the Court requested the parties to brief the law and identify the record facts related to the Wilsons's remaining claims in the counterclaim and third-party complaint (Dkt. No. 33). The parties complied with the Court's briefing schedule (Dkt. Nos. 34, 35, 36...