UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 07-2173 ( HHK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION AN D O RD ER Def endant ha s moved to dismis s the pro se complaint for lac k of jurisdiction and fa ilure to s tate a c la im u po n whic h r e lie f m ay

be g ra nte d. Pla int if

f o pp os e s th e mot ion

and re state s in de ta il the fa c tua l a lle g atio ns su pp or tin ghis c la ims . B e c a

us e the de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s lacks mer it in law and fa ct, it will be denied. BACK GR OUND T h e p l ai n t i ff

, p ro ce ed i n g in f

or ma pa up e ris and pr o s e , filed a c omplaint ag ainst the District of Columbia Publi c Schools (“D CPS ”) f or “discr imination and retaliation . . . on the ba sis of dis a bil ity in v iol atio n o f .
. . the Re ha bil itatio n A c t of

19 73
. . . , and

the Am e ri c ans wi th Disabilities Act of 1990, . . . for failingto provide a F ree and Public Education (FAPE)” to the plaintiff’s 13-year -old lear ning disa bled son, a student enr olled in DCPS . Compl. ¶ 1. The complaint further

states that the suit is broug ht under Titles IV and VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964 and the Equa l Educational Oppor tunities Act of 1974. Id. The c omplaint presents deta iled fac tual alleg ations in its 89 num bere d para g raphs. B riefly summarized, the complaint alleg es that DCPS discriminated ag ainst the plaintiff’s son on the ba sis of his disabili ty by its failure GODF REY D. HENNEGHAN , P la in t if f,
v . DI STRIC T OF CO LU M BIAP UB LIC SCH OOLS , Defendan t.-2-

over multiple school y ear s to provide a F APE to the plaintiff’s lea rning -disabled son a s require d by law and a s expressly

ag ree d upon in writing by DCPS profe ssionals at more than one point. See id. ¶¶ 9- 11, 36-44, 47-49, 63- 64, 88-89. The c omplaint repeatedly char acte rizes the failure s of the DCPS to provide the ag ree d upon FAPE a s “g ross neg lige nce” on the par t of the DCPS. Id. ¶¶ 64, 67. The complaint also sets forth fa ctual alleg ations in support of plaintiff’s re taliation claim. These fac ts include (1) r epea ted fa ilures to respond to ca lls and corr espondenc e fr om the plaintiff, (2) se nding notice s to plaintiff with deadlines for plaintiff’s re sponse af

ter the de adline has passe d, (3) se nding notice s to plaintiff at the wrongaddre ss and questioning whether the pla int if f i s a re sid e nt i n th e a

bs e nc e of any a pp are nt r e a so n f

or do ingso , ( 4) re fu sin gto m e e t w ith plaintiff pursuant to plaintiff’ s specific reque sts, (5) takingdrastic a ction befor e a notice d deadline ha d passed, a

nd (5) pr oviding inac curate information to plaintiff about other matters. See id. ¶¶ 25- 27, 30, 57, 59, 68-77, 84-87. Th e de fe nd ant a

rgue s th at th e c omp la int

sh ou ld b e dis mis se d b e c a us e it n ame s th e DC PS as the sole de fenda

nt and the DCPS is not an entity that may be sued in its own name. See Def .’s M o t. to D is mi s s at 4
- 5
. F urth e r , th e d e f e n d an t a r g u e s th at b e c a

u s e “ th e Re h a

b il it ati o nA c t[ ] int e nd e d to ba

r e mpl oy me nt d isc ri min atio n a g a ins t ha nd ic a pp e d in div idu a ls und e r f

e de ra lly financ ed programs . . . [it] is wholly irrele vant her e[,] ” id. at 5, and in a ny c a se , th e pla int if

f m us t — but did not — show that the discrimination was “solely by rea son of” the ha

ndicap, id. at 5, and “show‘[e]i ther ba d faith or gross misjudgment,” id. at6 (qu o t i n g Monahan v. Nebrask a, 687 F .2 d 1 16 4, 11 70 -7 1 ( 8th

Cir . 1 98 2) ). Simi larl y , th e de fe nd ant a rgue d th e Am e ri c an w ith Disabilities Act is “conc erne d with discrimination in employ ment” id. at 6, and that “ [t ]hi s is not
a ca se conc erningemploy ment discrimination, nor is there a ny mention of such in the-3-

Complaint,” id. at 7. The de fenda nt makes no ar g ument with respec t to any claims plaintiff alleg ed under

the Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act or the Equa l Educational Oppor tunities Act. Ins te a d, the de fe nd ant c on te nd s th at if the pla int if

f h a d b ro ug ht c la ims un de r t he Ind ivi du a ls w ith Disabilities Education Improvement Ac t, his failure to first exhaust the administrative re medies require d under that scheme w ould bar this suit. Id. at 7-8. DI SCU SSIO N A cour t may dismiss a complaint or a

ny portion of it for fa ilure to state a c laim upon wh ic h r e lie f m ay

be g ra nte d. F e d. R. C iv. P. 1 2( b) (6 ). A c ourt c on sid e ri ngsu c h a

mot ion to dismiss must assume that all fac tual alleg ations are true, e ven if they are doubtful. Be ll A tla nti c Corp. v. Twombly, 55 0 U .S. 54 4, - - , 1 27 S. Ct . 1 95 5, 19 65 (2 00 7) ; Kow al v . M CI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( D.C. Cir. 1994) (noting that a cour t must construe the complaint “liber ally

in the plaintiffs’ fa

vor” a nd “g rant plaintiffs the be nefit of a ll inferenc es that can be derive d from the f acts a lleg ed”) . A cour

t need not, howe ver, “ acc ept infer ence s drawn by plaintiffs if such infe renc es ar e unsupported by the fa cts set out in the complaint. Nor must [ a] court ac cept leg al conc lusions cast in the form of f actua l alleg ations.” Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276. In decidinga motion broug ht under Rule 12(b) (6), a court is limited to considering“the fac ts alleg ed in the complaint, docume nts attache d as exhibit s or incorpor ated by ref ere nce in the complaint, and matter s about which the Court may take judicial notice .” Gustave- Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 (D.D .C. 2002) (citations omitted). A pr o s e c omp la int is entitled to liberal construc tion and is not held to the same standar ds as is a for mal pleading draf ted by a per son trained in law. Haines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).-4-

Th e de fe nd ant c ite d o ne of the se c a se s, a

pp are ntl y wi tho ut a pp re c iatin gits c on te nt. 1 Her e, the de fenda

nt corre ctly

argues that the plaintiff na med a de fenda

nt, the DCPS , that cannot be sued in its own rig ht. Howeve r, bec ause a pro se complaint is entitled to li bera l construction, and be cause the entity that stands behind the DCPS, the District of Columbi a, has been se rved w ith and has ac tual notice of the summons and complaint, the Court, sua sponte, wi ll construe the defe ndant to be the District of Columbi a, and w ill subst itute the District as defe ndant in place of its ag ency the DCPS. The de fenda

nt’s argument that the Amer icans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Ac t pr ov ide re me die s o nly fo r wro ng s a

ri sin gin e mpl oy

me nt s itu atio ns is s imp ly

a g ro ss misstatement of the law. See Re ply at 2 ( “ the Re ha

bil itatio n A c t a

nd the AD A,
. . . a s p re vio us ly
se t f or th i n d e fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss [at 6- 7], a re ina pp lic a ble to t he a lle g e d f

a c ts i n th is
case .”). B oth the Rehabilitation Act and the A merica ns with Disabiliti es Ac t provide a c ause of
a c tio n in no n- e mpl oy

me nt s itu atio ns , a

nd c a se law f

ro m th is j ur isd ic tio n h a s ma de c le ar t hat it can pr ovide a c ause of

action for

public school students denied a FAPE. See, e .g., Alston v. District of Columbia, 56 1 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 9 ( D. D. C. 2 00 8) ; Rempson v . District of Columbia, 524 F . Su pp . 2 d 3 5 ( D. D. C. 2 00 7) ; Hinson v. Me rritt Educ. Ctr ., 52 1 F . Su pp . 2 2 ( D. D. C. 2 00 7) ; R.S. v. District of Columbia, 292 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D .C. 2003). The de fenda nt’s asser tion that the 1 pla int if f d id n ot a lle g e that th e dis c ri min atio n w a s b a se d s ole ly on his so n’ s d isa

bil ity is incorre ct. See Compl. ¶ 96 (“The D efe ndant DCPS has discriminated ag ainst [t he son] solely by
re a so n o f h is d isa

bil ity by e xclu din ghim

fr om a nd de nyinghim

pa rt ic ipatio n in

a fe de ra lly funded pr og ram.” ). The de fenda nt’s contention that the complaint does not a lleg e bad f aith or g ross misjudgment is also not supported by a fa ir rea ding of

the complaint. The f

actua l alleg ations in this complaint ex pressly alleg e “gross neg lige nce,” id. ¶¶ 64, 67, a nd the nature of-5-

Sho uld the pla int if

f d e sir e the a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l a pp ointe d f

ro m th e Court ’s Civ il 2 Pro Bono Pane l, see L oc a l Civ il Ru le 83 .1 1, the pla int if f m ay so ind ic ate by

fi lin gan a

pp ro pr iate motion for the Court’s consider ation. the fa cts alleg ed yield a re asonable infere nce of bad fa ith and g ross misjudgment, if, indee d, there is a ny dif fe re nc e be tw e e n g ro ss m isj ud g me nt a nd g ro ss n e g lig e nc e in t

his c on te xt. F or

the se
rea sons, the defe ndant’s motion to dism iss the claims broug ht under the Reha bilitation Act and the Am e ri c ans wi th D isa

bil ity Ac t w ill be de nie d, and

the c a se wi ll p ro c e e d o n th os e c la ims
. 2 The de fenda

nt’s contention that plaintiff fa iled to exhaust hi s administrative reme dies under the Individuals with Disabilit ies Education Improvement Ac t is gra tuitous and ineffe ctive, as the plaintiff did not bringthis action under that a ct, but under othe r fe dera l law. The de fe nd ant f

a ile d e nti re ly

to a dd re ss p la int if

f’ s c la ims un de r T itl e s IV a nd VI Iof the Civ il Ri g hts Act of 1964 a

nd the Equal Educ ational Opportunity Act of 1974. Title IV addr esses “ specia l educational problems,” but only insofar a s those problems ar e “oc casione d by desegreg ation.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-2. I t does not use the ter m “spec ial education” as that term is used in assoc iation wi th s tud e nts wh o h ave e xtra or din ary e du c atio na l ne e ds . N e ith e r T itl e VI Iof the Civ il Ri g hts Act nor the Equal Educa

tional Opportunity

Act of 1974 a ddresse s disability discrimination, and there fore , the plaintiff’s f actua l alleg ations of disability discrimination do not state a cla im upon which re lief may

be g rante d as to those ca uses of a ction. As the fa cts alleg ed in the complaint do not support claims under e ither the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964 or the Equal Educational Op po rt un ity Ac t of 19 74 , th e Court

wi ll sua sponte dismiss any claims alleg ed under

those ac ts. CONCLUSI ON AND ORDER For the re asons stated, the de fenda nt’s motion to di smiss t he complaint will be denie d. On the cour

t’s own authority , the claims under Titles I V and VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964-6-

and the Eq ua l E du c atio na l O pp or

tun ity Ac t of 19 74 wi ll b e dis mis se d f or fa ilure to s tate a

c la im upon which re lief may

be g rante d. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2)( B) (ii). Acc ording ly , it is hereby ORDE RED that th e de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s th e c omp la int be , a nd he re by is DENI ED. It is further ORDE RED that th e c la ims , if any , b ro ug ht u

nd e r T itl e s IV a

nd VI Iof the Civ il Ri g hts Act of 1964 a

nd the Equal Educ ational Opportunity Act of 1974 be , and her eby are , DI SMI SSED, su a s

po nte . I t is further ORDERED that, within the time prescr ibed by the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e, the defe ndant shall file its answer to the surviving disa

bility and re taliation claims.
/ s / Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. Da t e: Fe b ru ary

1 2 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge