J.V. v. Brownsville Indep. Sch. Dist.

J.V. b/n/f JOSE VEGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BROWNSVILLE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

June 22, 2020

OPINION AND ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' "First Amended Complaint" (hereinafter, Plaintiffs' "Amended Complaint"). Dkt. No. 55. For the reasons provided below, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow the Plaintiffs to exhaust their state administrative remedies.

I. Background and Procedural History

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs Jose and Margarita Vega (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") bring this civil action on behalf of their minor son, J.V., against Defendant Brownsville Independent School District (hereinafter, "BISD"). Dkt. No. 55. Plaintiffs assert that BISD violated J.V.'s right to a safe and non-hostile educational environment, reasonable accommodations, and freedom from discrimination. See id. at 8-10. In support of their claims for relief, Plaintiffs allege the following:

1. J.V. was born in 2004 and diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Id. at 4.

2. Because of his cerebral palsy, his spine is curved, one leg is shorter than the other, he has limited motor skills, and he is physically restricted to a wheelchair. Id.

3. J.V. requires the assistance of a paraprofessional to use the restroom and perform other activities; he also wears diapers to prevent accidents. Id.

4. J.V. cannot read but can make some audible sounds and uses a box to communicate. Id.

5. Because his development is delayed, he receives physical and speech therapy, along with other supportive services at school. Id.

6. On March 29, 2016, J.V. went on a school field trip to the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas; afterwards, the students went to the Golden Corral restaurant. Id. at 4.

7. While there, J.V.'s paraprofessional, Enrique Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), helped J.V. to use the restroom. See id. at 4-5.

8. Later that day, J.V.'s mother received a phone call from the school nurse that J.V.'s leg and knee were visibly swollen. Id. at 5.

9. When J.V. arrived home from school, his mother observed that his leg was swollen, and J.V. cried out in pain. Id.

10. J.V.'s parents called an ambulance, and the responding EMS personnel stated that his leg was broken. Id.

11. Doctors determined that J.V. suffered a fractured femur. Id.

12. He underwent surgery the next day. Id.13. When asked about his leg, J.V. said that Rodriguez had injured him. Id.

B. Procedural History

1. Special Education Due Process Hearing.

On August 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a "First Original Petition and Request for Special Education Due Process Hearing" (hereinafter, Plaintiffs' "Original Petition") with the Texas Education Agency ("TEA"). Dkt. No. 63 at 87. In their Original Petition, Plaintiffs alleged that BISD failed to investigate the incident and notify them of their procedural and substantive rights. Id. at 90. Plaintiffs asserted that BISD violated J.V.'s rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"). Id. at 95-99.

The TEA appointed Special Education Hearing Officer David Berger (hereinafter, the "SEHO") to conduct an impartial due process hearing to resolve the dispute. Dkt. No. 63 at 86. BISD filed a "Response to Petition" on September 1, 2017. Id. at 65. In its Response to Petition, BISD requested that the SEHO: (1) dismiss Plaintiffs' Original Petition; (2) find that BISD provided a free appropriate public education as required by the IDEA; and (3) find that he lacked jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims brought under the U.S. Constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and Title IX. Id. at 65.

The SEHO issued an order on September 21, 2017. Dkt. No. 63 at 35. In his order, the SEHO determined that he lacked jurisdiction to hear claims outside thescope of the IDEA. Id. at 35-39. He explained that his jurisdiction "is limited to matters relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child." Id. Therefore, the SEHO dismissed several of Plaintiffs' requests for relief that fell outside the scope of the IDEA. Id.

2. Rule 11 Agreement.

On November 21, 2017, the parties filed a "Notice of Rule 11 Agreement" (hereafter, the parties' "Rule 11 Agreement"). Dkt. No. 63 at 14. In their Rule 11 Agreement, the parties advised the SEHO that they agreed that the "gravamen" of Plaintiffs' claims addressed "civil rights violations" and not IDEA violations. See Dkt. No. 63 at 18. The Plaintiffs also agreed that BISD provided J.V. with a free appropriate public education "pursuant to IDEA and Section 504." Id. Furthermore, under the Rule 11 Agreement, Plaintiffs agreed to submit a "Motion to Nonsuit" to the SEHO and subsequently file their "Original Complaint" in federal court. Id. On January 2, 2018, the SEHO granted Plaintiffs' motion; all claims brought under the IDEA were dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 63 at 4.

3. Federal Court Proceedings.

On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their "First Original Complaint" (hereinafter, Plaintiffs' "Original Complaint") in this Court. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs' Original Complaint raised numerous causes of action against BISD and Rodriguez. Plaintiffs asserted that one or both Defendants violated J.V.'s rights under: 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the Rehabilitation Act; theADA, and Title IX. Id. at 10-16. Plaintiffs further argued that BISD ratified the acts and omissions of its staff members. Id.

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 55. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' allege various claims only against BISD, the sole defendant. Id. Plaintiffs argue that BISD: (1) failed to provide various supportive services; (2) subjected J.V. to discrimination; (3) failed to accommodate J.V. and provide him with a safe environment pursuant to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and (4) failed to provide J.V. with disability accommodations pursuant to Title II of the ADA, or modify existing accommodations. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that BISD is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its staff members. Id.

On February 12, 2020, BISD filed its "Amended Answer." Dkt. No. 58. BISD argues that, to the extent that J.V. was injured, BISD did not cause his injury. Rather, BISD argues that J.V.'s physical condition caused his injury. Id. BISD also contends that the parties' Rule 11 Agreement forecloses Plaintiffs from raising IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims in federal court. See id.

Upon receiving Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, the Court ordered the parties to submit briefing regarding the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 60. Plaintiffs filed a "Brief on Jurisdiction" (hereinafter, Plaintiffs' "Brief"). Dkt. No. 62. BISD filed a response to Plaintiffs' Brief (hereinafter, Defendant's "Response").¹ Dkt. No. 65.

II. Legal Standards

A. IDEA Requirements

The IDEA requires states to provide a "free appropriate public education" ("FAPE") to children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). The purpose of the IDEA is to provide all disabled children the availability of a free appropriate public education that "emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The IDEA, in turn, "requires states and local education agencies receiving federal IDEA funds to make a FAPE available to children with certain disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21." Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Moreover, states receiving federal funding under the IDEA must provide a FAPE to each disabled child within its boundaries and ensure that the education received is "in the least restrictive environment consistent with the disabled student's needs." Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). A FAPE consists of "special education and related services" that are individually tailored to meet a child's unique educational needs, along with sufficient "supportive services" to help the child benefit from instruction. See Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743, 748-49, 197 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2017) (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9), (26), (29)). Creating an "Individualized Education Plan" ("IEP") for each student is an essential part of providing a FAPE. Fry, 137 S. Ct. at 753.

States that receive funding through the IDEA must establish and maintain procedures to resolve disputes over the adequacy of a disabled student'seducation. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a) (Agencies must "ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provisions of a free appropriate public education by such agencies."). The IDEA provides a mechanism for any party to file a complaint, which forces the local education agency to hold a preliminary meeting to resolve the complaint. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6), (f)(1)(B)(i). The complaint proceeds through a state administrative process that consists of an impartial "due process hearing" to resolve the complaint, which is conducted by a local or state education agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A). Furthermore, at the state's expense, mediation is also provided to resolve the complaint. 20 U.S.C. §§1415(e)(1), (e)(2)(D).

At the end of the administrative process, a party that is "aggrieved by the findings and decision" may bring an IDEA claim in federal court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). The party that files a federal complaint must do so within "90 days from the date of the decision of the hearing officer." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B). The IDEA requires administrative exhaustion before filing an action in federal court....