Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Circuit’s decision is based on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005), regarding the availability of § 1983 to redress violations of federal statutory rights. The Third Circuit’s 2007 ruling in A.W. abrogated its holding in W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir.1995), that violations of a plaintiffs rights under IDEA and § 504 were actionable under § 1983. A.W., 486 F.3d at 795. As there is no genuine issue of material fact, and because the District is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, this court must grant summary judgment for the District on Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims. Id. See also Ronald E. v. School Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., No. 05-2535, 2007 WL 4225584, at *6 (E.D.Pa., Nov.29, 2007) (<HOLDING>). B. IDEA Claims 1. Statute of Limitations 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act (B) holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea (C) holding that parents did not have standing to sue under  1983 to enforce the predicate rights secured by idea and section 504 (D) holding that employers have standing to sue (E) holding that bjecause idea provides a comprehensive remedial scheme for violations of its own requirements  parties may not sue under section 1983 for an idea violation
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act