Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00027/USCOURTS-ared-2_05-cv-00027-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

A.R. AND R.R., As Parents and Next *

Friends of CHILD DOE, a Minor, *

*

 Plaintiff, *

*

*

vs. * 2:05cv0027 SWW 

*

*

*

CROSS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT *

NO. 7; PEGGY BURNETT, Individually, *

and in Her Official Capacity as Assistant *

Superintendent; WILLIAM RUSSELL, *

Individually and in His Official Capacity *

as Teacher; AMANDA DAVIS, Individually, *

and in Her Official Capacity as Teacher; *

JAMES SLOCUM, Individually, and in Her *

Official Capacity as Special Education *

Teacher; T. KENNETH JAMES; In His *

Official Capacity; AND THE ARKANSAS *

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, *

*

 Defendants. *

ORDER

 This is an action seeking review of a final Order entered by an administrative officer as the

result of a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”),

20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. The matter is before the Court on motion of separate defendants, T.

Kenneth James and the Arkansas Department of Education (the State defendants) to dismiss for

failure to state a claim [doc.#6]. State defendants argue that plaintiff’s conclusory statements are

insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has responded in

Case 2:05-cv-00027-SWW Document 14 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

 The Court’s Final Scheduling Order dated June 21, 2005, establishes a discovery deadline of December 9, 2005, and

a trial date (to the Court) of March 6, 2006.

2

opposition to this motion, arguing that there remain factual issues that preclude dismissal.

Having considered the matter, the Court will deny at this time State defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Certainly, State defendants’ arguments in support of dismissal are not frivolous and

may very well carry the day (although the Court makes no such decision at this time). 

Nevertheless, given plaintiff’s allegations and the relatively early procedural context of this

action,1

 the Court would prefer that State defendants’ arguments be presented in a properly

supported motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of August, 2005.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00027-SWW Document 14 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2