- 1 -

07- 1120- cv C a v e v . E a st M e a d o w U n io n F re e S c h o o l D istric t 1 UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS 2 3 FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 4 5

--- --- --- --- - 6 7 August Term 2007 8 9 10 (Argued: October5, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2008) 11 12 Do ck et N o. 07 -11 20 -cv 13 14

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --X 15 16 JO HNCAVE an d N AN CYCAVE as i nd ivi du als , p are nts , le ga l gu ard ian s an d guardi an s ad 17 litem of John Cave Jr. and JOHN CAV E Jr., 18 19 Pl aintif fs -ap pe llants , 20 21 - ag ain st - 22 23 EAST MEADOW UNION FREE SCHOO L DI STR IC T, W. TRESPER CLARKE HIGH 24 SCHOO L, ROBERT R. DILLION as adm inistr ation of The East Meadow Union Free School 25 Districtand W. T resper Clarke High School and ROBERT R. DILLON individually and 26 personall y, JOSEPH BARBE RA as adm inistr ation of The East Meadow Union Free School 27 Districtand W. T resper Clarke High School and JOSEPH BARBE RA individually and 28 personall y, LEON J. CAMPO as adm inistr ation of The East Meadow Union Free School 29 Districtand W. T resper Clarke High School and LEON J. CAMPO individually and 30 personall y, TIMOTHY VOELS as adm inistr ation of The East Meadow Union Free School 31 Districtand W. T resper Clarke High School and TIMOTHY VOELS individually and 32 personall y, DEBOR AH COATES as Presidentof the Board of Education of East Meadow 33 School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke High School and DEBORAH CO AT ES ind ivi du all y 34 and personall y, BRIAN O’ FL AH ERTYas V ice Pr esi de nt o f t he Bo ard of Ed uc ati on of Ea st 35 Meadow School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke High School and BRIAN O’FLAHERTY 36 individual ly and personal ly, DEBRA KI RS H a s T rus tee of the Bo ard

of Ed uc ati on of Ea st 37 Meadow Union Free School District and W. Tresper Clarke High School and DEBRA KIRSH 38 individual ly and personal ly, JUDY SC HI ECH EL as T rus tee of the Bo ard

of Ed uc ati on of Ea st 39 Meadow Union Free School District and W. Tresper Clarke High School and JUDY 40 SCHIECHE L individuall y and personall y, WALTER SKINNER as Trustee of the Board of 41 Education of East Meadow Union Free School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke High School 42 and WA LTER SKINNER individually and persona lly, BARRY RUBINSTE IN as Trustee of 43 the Board of Education of East Mea dow Union Free School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke- 2 -

1 High School and BARRY RUBINSTE IN indi vidually and pe rsonally, J OSEPH PA RI SI as 2 TRU STE E o f the Boa rdof E du ca ti onof E as t M ea do w Un io n F re e S ch oo l D is tr ic t a ndW. 3 Tresper Clarke High School and JOSEPH PARISI individuall y and personall y, GERALD INE 4 DO DD AT O a s A ssi stant P rin cip al and adm ini str ati on

of Th e E ast Mea do w Unio n F ree 5 School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke High School and GERALDINE DODDA TO 6 individual ly and personal ly, DARRYL STRABU K as Assistant Pr incipal a nd administration 7 of The East Meadow School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke High School and DARRYL 8 STRABU K individuall y and personall y, PATRICE DOBIES as an em ployee, agent a nd 9 servant of East Me adow Union Free School Distr ict and W. Tresper Clarke High School and 10 PATRICE DOBIES individually and per sonally and JOHN CAMPO as an em ployee, agent 11 and servant of East M eadow School Distri ct and W. Tresper Clarke High School and J OHN 12 CAMPO individually and per sonally, 13 14 De fe nd ants- ap pe lle es. 15 16

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --X 17 18 Be fo re: FE IN BE RG , C AL AB RE SI , and W ES LE Y, Ci rcu it Jud ge s. 19 20 Plaintiffs-appel lants se ekr eview of a decision of the Unit ed States Dist rict Courtfor 21 the Eastern Districtof New Y ork (Spatt, J.) denying their m otion for a preliminary injunc tion 22 en joi nin g d ef

en dants -ap pe lle es f

rom de ny ingpla int if

f- ap pe llant J ohn Cave Jr. entryto h is 23 high school and any sc hool facilit y while accompanied by his service dog. We rem and the 24 case to the dis tri ct c ourt and dir ect it t o d ism iss wi tho ut p rej ud ice pla int if fs -ap pe llants ’ 25 co m

pla int in i ts e nti rety f

or l ack of su bje ct m att er j uri sd ict ion

du e to plai nti ff

s-a pp ell ants’ 26 fa ilure t o exhaust th e ad m ini str ati ve rem ed ies av ail ab le t o th em un de r th e ID EA . W e al so 27 deny the motion to certi fy all questions of state law to the New York Court of Appeals. 28 29 PAUL J. MA RG IO TT A, ESQ ., Lin de nhurs t, NY, fo r pl aintif fs

30 ap pe llants

. 31 32 STAN LEY A. CAMHI, ESQ ., Jaspan, Schlesi nger & Hofman, LL P, 33 Garde n C ity , NY, fo r de fe nd ants- ap pe lle es. 34 35 36 FE IN BE RG , C irc uit Ju dg e: 37 Plainti ffs-appella nts, disabl ed high school student John Cave Jr. ( “John, Jr.”) a nd 38 his parents, ap pe al f rom a d eci sio n o f t

he Un ite d S tat es D ist

ric t C ourt f

or t he Ea ste rn 39 Di str ict

of Ne w Y ork

(S patt, J. ) de ny ingthe ir m oti on fo r a p rel im inary i nju

nc tio n und er 40 th e Am ericans wit h Disabilit ies Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et s eq. , Section 41 504 of the Rehabilita tion Act of 1973 (“Secti on 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 42 U.S.C. §- 3 -

1 1983 (“§ 1983”). The inj unction sought would ha ve re straine d defendants-appel lees from 2 denying John, Jr. ent ry to his hi gh school and all school facili ti es while accompanied by 3 his servi ce dog, Simba. The judge, in a thorough opin io n, denie d appellant s’ motion 4 because they ha d failed to est ablish a r easonable l ik el ih ood of success on the merits of 5 their federa l and stat e law cl ai ms. Se e C av e v. E. Mea do w U

nio n F reeSc h. Di

st. , 480 F. 6 Su pp . 2 d 6 10 (E .D .N .Y . 2007). W e h old that th e d ist

ric t co urt lac ke d s ub

jec t m att er 7 jur isd ict ion

ov er a pp ell ants’ fe de ral cla im s b eca us e, be fo re f

ili ngthe ir s uit , a

ppell ants 8 fa ile d to ex ha

us t th e ad m ini strative re m ed ies pro vid ed bythe Ind ivi du als wi th D isa bil iti es 9 Education Act (“ IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. , and its implementing state l egis la ti on. 10 W e also h ol d th atin the absence of juri sdiction ove r the federal claims, the exerci se of 11 s up p l e ment al ju ri sd ic ti onov erap pe ll an ts ’ s ta te la w c au se s o f ac ti onwa s i mpr op er . We 12 the ref

ore dir ect the dis tri ct c ourt t o d ism iss wi tho ut p rej ud ice ap pe llants’ co m pla int in i ts 13 entiret y for lack of subject matter j urisdict ion.- 4 -

1 I. BACKGROUND 2 John, Jr. is a he aring-i mpair eds tudent enrol led in the W. Tresper Clarke High 3 School in the EastMeadow Union Free School District. To mi ni miz e th e impact of John, 4 Jr. ’s d isa

bil ityin t he ed uc ati on al s ett ing , th e sc ho ol a uth ori tie s, in col lab oratio n w ithhis 5 m oth er, de ve lop ed an ind ivi du al e duc ati on

pro gram (“I EP ”) d esi gn ed

to m eet his sp eci fi c 6 needs and enable him to be a fully m ainstre amed student. J oh n, J r. has had an IEP 7 designed for him since t he a ge of three. Ca ve , 480 F. Supp. 2d at 630. Under his curr ent 8 IE P, Jo hn , Jr. i s p rov ide d w itha w ide ran ge of sp eci al e du cat ion

an d s up po rt s erv ice s, 9 including a s ign language i nterpret er for al l academic subjects , individual sessions with a 10 teacher of the hearing-impaired, a classroom note taker, a m icrophone system that allows 11 him

to he ar s ound s m ore cle arl y, a cl os ed -ca pti on de vic e whe n v ide os are sh own in cla ss 12 and preferenti al class room seating. Id. at 616-21. 13 In December 2006, John, Jr.’s pare nts asked the high s ch oo l aut horitie s to allow 14 him

to b rin g h is n ew ly a cq

uir ed ser vic e d og , S im

ba , to sch oo l w ithhim ev ery day. De sp ite 15 the varie ty o f a cco mm od ati on s su pp lie d b y th e sc ho ol f

or J ohn, Jr.’ s dis ab ili ty, his parents 16 urg ed

that S im ba ’s p res en ce w as n ece ssary, as S im ba wo uld ale rt John, Jr. to e m erg en cy 17 be lls , to pe op le c all inghis nam e, or t o s ound s o f c ar e ng ine s in the stree t, and

wo uld 18 generall y enhance his soc ializa tion skil ls. Id. at 6 19 , 6 21 . M ore im po rtant, his parents 19 cla im

that S im

ba is f or J ohn, Jr. an“in de pe nd ent li fe too l,” wh ich , like h is c oc hle ar 20 implants, is supposed to i ncrease hi s independence a nd li mitthe e ffects of the hearing 21 impairm ent. Id. at 617, 619. 22 The school officials deni ed the Caves’ r eques t onthe gr ound that the pr esence of 23 the do g w ou ld p rov e d isruptive to John , Jr.’ s ed uc ati on , s inc e h is c las s sc he du le and his 24 ov era ll e du cat ion

pro gram would have t o be m od if ied to avo id t

he expo sure o f a lle rgi c1 The Sect i on 504 t eam i s a sc hool

- bas ed t eam char ged w i t h pr ot ect i ng t he r i ght s of di sa bl ed st udent s under

Sect i on 504. The t eam i s m ade up of a de si gnat ed sc hool di st r i ct of f i cer –t he “ 504 C om pl i ance O f f i cer ”– a nd per sons know l edgea bl e a bout t he pa r t i cul ar st udent ’ s nee ds, s uch a s sc hool ps ychol ogi st s and s peci al i nst r uct or s, i ncl udi ng th e p a re n ts, if t h e y c h o o se to p a rticip a te

. - 5 - 1 stu de nts an d te ach ers to t he do g. Th e sc ho ol d ist ric t’s Se cti on

50 4 te am m et i n D ece m be r 1 2 2006 to considerthe problem. Appe ll an ts did notattend tha t meeting, at which the Sect ion 3 504 team determined that John, Jr. enj oyed fu ll a cces s to the dis trict ’s specia l educati on 4 pro gram s and facilities and that he curre ntl y d id n ot n eed a se rvi ce d ogat s ch oo l, b eca us e 5 he wa s f

un cti on ingsat isf

act ori ly u nd er t he ap pro ve d IE P. Th ereafter, the Sec tio n 5 04 team 6 co nv en ed

a m eet ingof

the school d istric t’s Co mm itt ee o n S pe cia l E du cat ion (“C SE ”). 7 Appellants di d attend tha t meeting. However, the CSE affirm ed the findings of the Sect ion 8 504 team. Although appellants wer e informed abo utt he availabi lity of administrati ve 9 review of the school di strict ’s decisi ons, they did not us e this proc ess. Id. at 626-27, 630- 10 31. 11 Instead, afte r a s eri es o f c on fr ontat ion s w ithsch oo l of fi cia ls, ap pe llants fi led

thi s 12 lawsuit in February 2007 againstthe high school andt he school district, i n addition t o 15 13 dis tri ct o ff

ici als an d h igh

sch oo l em

plo ye es i n th eir off

ici al and ind ivi du al c ap aci tie s, 14 all eg ingvio lat ion s o f t he AD A, Se cti on

50 4 and § 1 98 3, as w ell as s ev era l N ewYo rk 15 statute s (the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights Law and the 16 Ne w Yo rk Ed

uc ati on L aw ). In the ir co m

pla int , ap pe llants n ot on ly asked for p rel im inary 17 an d p erm an ent in

jun cti ons enjoin ingthe sch oo l of fi cia ls f rom ba rri ngJo hn , Jr. a cce ss t o 18 the sch oo l an d it s f aci lit ies wh enacc om

panie d b y S im

ba , b ut a lso sought $150, 00 0, 00 0 in 19 compensatory and punitive da mages, along with court expense s and attorneys’ fees. 20 Thereafter, the dis tr ic t court conducted a four- and-one-hal f-day hearing on 21 plainti ffs’ m otion for a prel iminary i nj un cti on. The judge denied the motion because the2 For r eas ons w e expl ai n i n gr eat er det ai l bel ow , t he I D EA ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r em ent appl i es equal l y t o r el i ef

avai l abl e unde r ot her s t at ut es , s uch a s t he A D A , Sect i on 50 4, and § 1 98 3, i f t he r el i ef

s ought under t hose s t at ut es

w oul d al so be a vai l abl e unde r t he I D EA

. Thus, i f t he I D EA i s appl i cabl e – a ques t i on t hat w e a nsw er i n t he

a ffirm a tive b e lo w – it fo re c lo se s th e re lief a p p e llan ts s e e k u n d e r th o se o th e r sta tu te s. - 6 - 1 Caves had not establish edar ea sonable li kelihood of success on t he merits of the 2 un de rly ingact ion

du e to the ir f

ail ure to exhaust t

he adm ini str ati ve rem ed ies av ail ab le 3 under the IDEA, a failure fatal to thei r federal caus es of action. Id. at 635-39. 4 Af

ter the dis trict court d en ied the m oti on

fo r a p rel im inary i nju

nc tio n, de fe nd ants 5 m ov ed , o nM arc h2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , t o d is m is s th e c o m p la int in i ts e nti re ty

f o r la c k o f subje ct 6 matter jurisdi ction or, i n the alte rnative, for summary j udgment. Also on March 20, the 7 Cave s ap pe ale d f

rom de nia l of the pre lim inary i nju nc tio n and

the rea ft er m ov ed

in t his 8 court to ce rtify all que stions of stat e law to the New York Court of Appe als. That motion 9 has been referr ed to this pa nel for a decis io n si mul tane ous with our dispos ition of the 10 appeal. 11 II. AN AL YS IS 12 A. FE DE RA L C LA IMS 13 14 1. The IDEA’s Exhaustion Requirement 15 In t

his co urt , a

pp ell ants a sse rt v ari ou s in fr ing em ents b y a pp ell ees of John , Jr.’ s 16 rights underthe ADA, Section 504 an d § 1983. They essentia lly all ege federal quest ion 17 jur isd ict ion

un de r 28 U. S. C. § 1 33 1, wh ich pro vid es t

hat di str ict court s h av e o rig ina l 18 jur isd ict ion

ov er c lai m s th at aris e und er the Co ns tit uti on or the laws of

the Un ite d S tat es. 19 Ap pe llants ’ ri ght to jud ici al r eli ef do es d ep en d u lti m ate ly o n the constructio n o f t he se 20 fe de ral statut es, but ap pe lle es’ fi rst argument re qu ire s u s to co ns ide r whe the r w e ar e b arr ed 2 1 f ro m c o n s id e ri n g th e m

at a ll at t h is ti m e if

th e ID E Aap p li e s. Se e Br

. of Appellees a t 26. 2 22 Th e d istric t co urt

car ef ull y s um m ari zed the statut ory

fr am ew ork

an d w e se e li ttl e purpo se- 7 -

1 in r eit eratin g it s an alysis. Ca ve , 4 80 F. Supp . 2 d a t 6 33 -3 6. We hi gh li gh t h er e o nl y s ome 2 essentia l points. 3 Th e ID EA ’s c entra l m an date i s to provide disa ble d s tud ents w itha “f ree 4 ap pro pri ate pu

bli c ed uc ati on ” in

the lea st r est

ric tiv e envir onment suita ble fo r th eir

ne ed s. 5 Heldman ex rel. v. Sobol , 9 62 F. 2d14 8, 15 0 ( 2dCi r. 19 92 ). Und erth e e du c a t i o n a l s ch eme 6 of the IDEA (previously known as the Education of the Handicapped Act), parents of 7 students with disabling c ondit ions are guar anteed “both a n opportunity for meaningful 8 input into a ll decis ions affectin g th ei r chil d’s educati on and the rightto seek revi ew of any 9 de cis ion s th eythi nk ina pp rop riate. ” Honig v. Doe , 48 4 U .S. 305, 31 1-1 2 (1 98 8). Parents 1 0 are s p e c if

ic a ll ye nti tl e d

t o r e qu e s t ad

u e p ro c e s s h e ari n g i no rd e r to p re s e nt c o m p la ints as 11 “to any matter rel ating to t he identifica tion, evalua tion, ore du ca ti onal placement of the 12 ch ild , o r th e p rov isi on of a f ree ap pro pri ate pu

bli c ed uc ati on .” 20 U. S. C. § 1 415(b)(6)(A) ; 13 se e also i d. § 1 4 1 5 (f )( 1 )( A ), (g ) an d

(h ) ( d e li n e ati n g p ro c e d

ura l s a f e g u ard s to b e acc ord ed 14 to p art ies fi lin g a co m pla int an d th eir

rig ht t o s eek

rev iewthroug h lo cal an d s tat e 15 administrative a ve nu es ). New York has opted for a two-tier administr ative syst em f or 16 rev iewof

IE Ps . F irs t, an im

parti al h ear ingof

fi cer is s ele cte d f

rom a list of cer tif ied of fi cer s 17 and appointed by the local boar d of educ ation or the competent state age ncy to conduct t he 1 8 ini ti a l h e ari n g an d is s u e awri tt e nd e c is io n . T h at d e c is io nc anth e nb e ap p e a le d to as tat e 19 rev iewof

fi cer of the Ne w Y ork

Ed uc ati on De partm ent. He ldman , 962 F.2d at 152 (cit ing 20 N. Y. Ed

uc . L aw§ 4 40 4(1 ) – ( 2))

. 21 On ly after exhau sti on of the se p roc ed

ure s h as an a gg rie ve d p arty th e ri ght to fi le a 2 2 su it ina fed e ra l o r s tate c o urt

. 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 5 (i )( 2 )( A ). T h e p art ie s d o n o t d is p ute thi s 23 req

uir em ent. F ail ure to e xh au st the adm ini str ati ve reme die s d ep riv es t he co urt of su bje ct 24 matter jurisdi ction. Po lera v . B d. of E du c. of N ew bu rg h E nla rged Ci ty S ch . D ist

. , 288 F.3d- 8 -

1 478, 483 (2d. Cir. 2002) (c iting Ho pev. Co rti nes , 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d C ir. 1 99 5) ). The 2 purpose of

the exha us tio n ru le i s to “ch ann el d isp ute s re lat ed to t he ed uc ati on of dis ab led 3 children i nto an administrati ve process that could appl y administrators’ experti se i n the 4 are a an d p rom

ptl y re so lve gri ev an ces .” Id. at 4 87 ; see also Heldman , 962 F.2d at 159 5 (po int ingout th at e xh au sti on “p erm its anag en cyto b rin g it s exp ert ise to b ear on a p rob lem 6 as w ell as t o c orr ect its own m ist ak es” ). 7 Importantly, complainants must overcome this significantprocedur al hurdle not 8 on ly whe n th eywi sh to f ile a su it und er the ID EAits elf , b ut a lso wh en ev er the y a sse rt 9 claims for relief av ail ab le under the ID EA , re gardl ess of the statut ory

ba sis of the ir 10 co m

pla int . T he ID EAexpli cit ly p rov ide s: 11 No thingin t his ch ap ter

sh all be co ns tru ed

to r est ric t or lim it the rig hts , 12 pro ced

ure s, an d re m ed ies av aila ble un de r th e C on sti tut ion , th e Am eri can s w ith 13 Disabilit ies Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.], title V of the Rehabil itati on 14 Ac t of

19 73 [2 9 U .S .C .A . § 791 e t se q. ], or o the r F ed era l laws pro tec tin g th e ri ghts 15 of

children w ithdis ab ili tie s, ex cep t th at be fore th e fi ling o

f a c ivi l ac tio n u nd

er 16 such law

s see king rel ief

th at is als o av ail

ab le un de r thi

s su bc ha pte r, the 17 procedures un de r subsections (f) and (g) of this se ction shall be exhausted t o the 18 sa meexten t as wo uld bereq uired

had theac tio n b een brou gh t un de r th is 19 su bc ha

pte r . 20 21 20 U.S.C. § 1415( l) (e m ph asi s ad de d). 22 Si nc e appellants do n ot c ontes t th at t he y h av e f

ail ed to e xh au st t

he ID EA ’s 23 adm ini str ati ve rem ed ies , th e q ue stio n w e m

us t an sw er i s si m

ply wh eth er the y w ere 24 required t o do so before filing thi s lawsuit. 25 2. Is t he ID EA ’s E xh au sti on Re qu ire men t A pp lic ab le i n T hi s C as e? 26 27 Th e ap pli cab ili ty o f t he ID EA ’s e xh au sti on

req uir em ent to fe de ral cla im s p resented 28 under statutes otherthan the IDEA is not a matter of first impression in this court. I n Hope , 29 we af

fi rm ed a d istric t co urt ’s d ism issal of a dy sle xic stu de nt’ s d isa bil ityan d ra ce- 9 -

1 discrimination cl aims under the ADA for lack of subject matter j urisdict ion, due to the 2 plainti ffs’ failure to exhaustadministrative r eview procedure s av ai lable unde r the IDEA. 3 Hope , 69 F. 3d

at 6 88 . T he dis tri ct c ourt i n Hope h ad hel d that the pl aintiffs’ reques t for 4 inj unctive re lie f a ga ins t th e sc ho ol f or i ts r ef us al t o p rov ide ap pro pri ate ed uc ati on al 5 ser vic es w as i n e sse nce an

ind ire ct c ha lle ng e to the ad eq ua cyof the stu de nt’ s IE P and

as 6 such, “a textbook example of the types of cases just ifying administrative exhaustion.” 7 Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14, 21 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). 8 In Po lera – where, as in the present ca se, plaint iffs were seeki ng i nj uncti ve relie f, 9 a s w e ll a s p un it iv e an d c o m p e n s ato ry d am a g e s –

w e h e ld th at a v is u a ll yim

p a ir e d stu de nt’ s 10 cla im s und er the AD A and the Re ha

bil itatio n A ct w ere su

bje ct t o th e exha

us tio n ru le, 11 because the e quitable r elief soug htwa s avai lable underthe IDEA. Po lera , 288 F.3d at 486. 12 In that ca se, we squarely e xamine d the avail ability of m onetary damages under the I DEA 13 and, although we found that “adamages rem edy is . . . fu nd ame nt all y inconsist ent with” 14 the IDEA’s goals and i s thus unavail able under that statute, id. , we co nc lud ed that a p ray er 15 for damages does not enable a plai nt if f t o “si destep the e xhaustion re quirement of the 16 ID EA ,” id. at 488. We em phasized tha t the “t heory behind the grievance may activat e the 17 IDEA pr oc ess, even if the pl aintiff wants a form of relief that the IDEA does not suppl y.” 18 Id. (quoting Charlie F. v. Bd. of Educ. of Skokie Sch. Dist., 9 8 F

. 3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 1 -9 2 (7 th C ir. 19 19 96 )). 20 Both our holding in Polera and the district court’s ca re ful o pinion in Hopeare 21 ap po sit e. Ap pe llants in t he ir c om pla int see k d am ag es and

inj un cti ve rel ief

, a lon g w ith 22 attorneys ’ fees and court c osts. The lat ter two it ems are i ndeed available under the IDEA. 23 Se e 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). By contr ast, compensatory an d punit ive damages, as we 24 expla ined in Po lera , are not avai lable underthe IDEA. Po lera , 2 88 F. 3d at 4 83-86.- 10 -

1 Nevertheles s, in Po lera we he ld t hat a d isa

bled stud ent who cla im s d ef ici en cie s in

he r 2 educational program m ay not bypass the IDEA’s administrative e xhaustion rul e merely by 3 claiming moneta ry damages. Id. at 488. We thus decline to exc use appella nts from the 4 exhaustion r equirement merely because in the ir suitthey s eek, inter a lia , p ecu niary 5 damages, a remedy unavailable under the IDEA. 6 Whe the r th e p erm an ent an d te m po rar y in jun cti ve rel ief

sought by a

pp ell ants i s 7 availabl e unde r th e ID EA poses a more puzzling question. Appel lants dis claim any 8 ch all en ge to t

he ed uc ati on al s uff

ici en cyof

Jo hn , Jr.’ s IE P. Th eystr on gly argue that th eir 9 cla im

is n ot o ne of

vio lat ion

of the ID EA ’s m an date f or t he prov isi on

of a “f ree 10 appropriat e public educa tion” to ea ch dis abled student , but a clai m of unlawful 11 dis cri m inatio n. Si m ba ’s role is t o be “an

ind ep en de nt l if

e to ol” fo r Jo hn , Jr., “‘u sed to l im it 12 the ef

fe cts of [h is] dis ab ili ty, to a llo w h im to c ontin ue to be more an d m ore ind ep en de nt a s 13 he continues to g row and h ead to ward a lif

e as . . . a pro du cti ve a du lt in a hearing 14 so cie ty. ’” Ca ve , 480 F. Supp. 2d at 619 (quoting Nancy Cave’ s testi mony be fore the 15 dis tri ct c ourt) . In

oth er w ord s, the y urge us to t reat John, Jr. no t as a student who is being 16 deprived of

anap pro pri ate pu

bli c ed uc ati on , b ut a s a person wh o i s b e in g d e n ie d a cce ss t o 17 a public facil ity by reas on of his disabili ty andh is non- educational need for a servic e dog. 18 Se e Br. of Appellants at 8. 19 Th is i s a s lig htl y d if fe rent sce nario than th e si tuatio ns in e ith er Polera or Hope

. 20 Altho ug h in

bo th c ase s p lai nti ff

s’ f ed era l cl aim s w ere als o p rem ise d o n s tat ute s o the r th an 21 the ID EA , p lai nti ff s w ere ess entia llyall eg ingthat th eywe re not provid ed ser vic es t ail ore d 22 to m eet

the ir s pe cia l ne ed s d

ue to d ef ici en cie s in

the ir I EP

. Po lera , 288 F.3 d at 48 0; Ho pe, 23 87 2 F . S up p. at 17-19. In this ca se, however, appell ants have expl icitl y renounced any 24 ch all en ge to t he educatio na l ad eq ua cyof Jo hn , Jr.’ s cu

rre nt I EP . T he y re qu est

on ly t hat- 11 -

1 Simba be allowed to accom pany John, Jr. while on t he school premises as a matter of John, 2 Jr.’s absol ute rightof entry int o an d us e of a publ ic facilit y. This case re quires us t o refine 3 further our definit ion of types of relief avai lable underthe IDEA. 4 W e ar e no t c onvin ced th at ap pe llants ’ c lai m s are m ate ria llyd ist inguis ha ble from 5 claims that c ou ld fa ll wi thi n the am bit o f the ID EA

. Th e hig h sch oo l p rin cip al and the 6 school dist rict’ s direct or of special educ ation tes ti fi ed before the dist rict court that John, 7 Jr.’s cla ss sch ed

ule und er his e xis tin g IE P wo uld h av e to be c hang ed

to a cco mm odate the 8 co nc ern s o f a lle rgi c st ud ents and

tea ch ers and to di m ini shthe dis tra cti on s th at S im ba ’s 9 presence would enge nder. Ca ve , 4 80 F. Su pp . 2d at 627-2 8, 63 1. Sc ho ol a uth ori tie s w ou ld 10 also have to make certa in prac tical a rrangements to maintain the smooth functioning of the 11 sch oo l and to ensure b oth that S im

ba wa s re cei vin g p rop er c are an d th at J ohn, Jr. 12 continued to r eceive nece ssary and appr opri ate educational and support services. Id. It i s 13 hard t o im ag ine , f or e xam ple , h owJo hn , Jr. c ou ld s til l atten d th e p hy sic al e du cat ion cla ss 14 while at the same time attending to the dog’s needs; or how he could bring Si mba to a 15 class where a nother stude nt with a certified all ergic re actio n to dogs would be present

. Id. 16 at 627, 631. These iss ues implicate John, Jr .’s IEP and would be bestdealt with t hrough 17 the adm ini str ati ve pro ces s. Th e lo cal and state ed uc ati on ag en cie s ar e “u

niq ue ly w ell 18 su ite d to rev iewthe co nte nt and im ple m entat ion

of IE Ps

. . . and to deter m ine wh at 19 ch an ge s, if

any, are ne ed ed .” Po lera , 288 F.3d at 487. 20 W e th

us ag ree wi th t

he dis tri ct c ourt h ere that “at le ast in part, the pla int if

fs are 21 challengi ng the adequacy of John, Jr.’s IEP because it does not include a service d og.” 22 Ca ve , 480 F. S up p. 2d at 637. The reli ef appellants s eek, “namely permission to bring the 23 ser

vic e d ogto s ch oo l, i s in su bs tan ce a m od if icatio n o f J ohn, Jr. ’s I EP

. . . . [and] is 24 av ail ab le und er the ID EA .” Id. at 6 38 . W e al so co nc ur w iththe dis tri ct c ourt’ s f ind ingthat3 T h e d i str i ct co u rt al so co rr ec t l y po in te d o u t t h a t Su l l i van ex re l

. Sul l i van v. Val l ej o C i t y Uni f i ed Sc hool D i st ri ct , 7 3 1 F . S u p p . 9 4 7 (E .D . C a l. 1 9 9 0 ), is n o t co n tro lli n g h e re . C ave , 480 F. Supp. 2d at 637- 38. - 12 - 1 “ ‘[ e ] d

u c ati o n , ’ a s u s e d

w it h in th e ID E A , e n c o m

p a s s e s m o re th ans im

p ly a c a d e m ics .” Id. at 2 63 5. W e n ote in t

hat re gard t

hat on e o f t

he go als of

the ID EAis “ to e ns ure that al l ch ild ren 3 wi th d isa

bil iti es h av e av ail ab le t o th em a f ree ap pro pri ate public educatio n th at e m ph asi zes 4 sp eci al ed

uc ati on and relate d se rv ic e s d e sig n e dto m eet t hei r uni que ne eds and pre pare t hem f

or f ur t her 5 educa t i on, e m pl oy m ent, and i ndepende ntl i vi ng .” 20 U. S. C. § 1 40 0(d)(1 )(A ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A 6 re q u e st fo r a se rv ic e d o g to b e p e rm itt e d to e sc o rt a d isa b le d stu d e n t at sc h o o l as a n “in d e p e n d e n t l ife to o l” is 7 hence not ent i r el y beyond t he bounds of t he I D EA ’ s educa t i onal s cheme. 3 8 Fi nal l y, w e r ej ect appe l l ant s’ ar gum ent t hat t hei r § 1983 di sc r i m i nat i on cl ai m i s not subj ect t o t he 9 exhaus t i on r ul e. The l anguage of Sect i on 1415( l ) of

t he I D EA i s suf

f i ci ent l y br oad and en com passes 10 co m p l ain t s as se rt ed un d er any f eder al st at ut e, as l ong as t hey s eek r el i ef ava i l abl e unde r t he I D EA

. I n H ope , 11 w e af

f i r med t he d i s mi s s al o f a l l o f p l ai nt i f f s ’ c l ai ms, i nc l ud i ng t he i r § 1 98 3 ca us e of a ct i on , f

or want of 12 su bje c t m a tter ju risd ic tion d u e to n o n -e x h a u stio n . H ope , 6 9 F .3 d a t 6 8 8 ; see also Hope, 87 2 F . S up p. at 13 19 -20 (ho ldi ngthat th e IDEA’s exha us tio n re qu ire m ent ap pli es t o c lai m s as ser ted un de r § 14 19 83 )

. I n Mrs . W. v. Ti rozzi , 8 3 2 F

. 2 d 7 4 8 (2 d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ), w e f

o un d th at t h e ID EA ’s 15 exhaustion r equirement is t he “same for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . actions” and thatthe 16 adm ini str ati ve “re m ed ies m us t be exha

us ted pri or t o in sti tut inga ci vil action in f ed era l 17 co urt

pursu ant to

. . . § 19 83 .” Id. at 756. 18 A pp el l ants r el y on Pa tsy v. Bo ar d o f R egen ts , 457 U.S. 496 (1982) and D oe v . Pf rom m er , 19 1 4 8 F .3 d 7 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t ex h a u stio n o f a d m in istra tive re m e d ie s is n o t a p re re q u isite 20 t o a § 19 83 c l ai m. Th ei r r ea di ng o f t ha t c as el aw i s mi s gu i de d. I n D oe , w e h e ld th a t “ exha us tio n is 21 ne ces sar

y p rio r to bri ng inga § 19 83 act ion on ly whe re C on gre ss h as c arved out a spe cif ic 22 ex cep tio n to the ge ne ral rul e th at e xh austion is no t re qu ire d. ” Doe, 148 F.3d at 78. Doe 23 found that there was no such excepti on, because the s tatute i n question (Sec tion 72 2( d) of t he- 13 -

1 R e h a b ili ta tion A c t) d id n o t co n ta in a n e x p licit ex h a u stio n ru le . Id. Th e pre sent case, how ev er, 2 in vo lv es the IDEA’s Secti on1415( l ), w h ic h u n e q u iv o c a lly d ire c ts a ll p la in tiffs se e k in g re lief a v a ilab le 3 u n d e r th e ID E A to first e x h a u s t th e a d m in istra tive p ro c e d u re s p ro v id e d b y th e ID E A b e fo re fil in g a law su it. 4 B y ena ct i ng t hi s se ct i on, C ongr es s undoubt edl y i nt end ed t o i nt r oduce a “ spe ci f i c e xcept i on t o t he ge ner al 5 ru le ” th at § 1 9 8 3 plainti ff s are no t su bj ec t t o t h e e x h au sti o n req u i rem en t

. A p p ell an t s’ § 1 9 8 3 claim t h u s falls 6 w i t hi n t he s cope of Sect i on 1415( l ) t o the s am e e xt ent as t hei r cl ai m s under t he A D A or t he R ehabi l i t at i on 7 A c t. 8 Th eref

ore , w e h old

that th e ID EA ’s e xh au sti on rul e ap pli es t o a ll o f a

pp ell ants’ 9 federal causes of action regar dless of theirstatutory bases. 10 3. Is t he Futility Except ion to the 11 Ex ha us tio n R eq ui rem en t A pp lic ab le? 12 13 Th e exha

us tio n re qu ire m ent is ex cu sed when exhaust ion

wo uld be futil e b eca

us e 14 the administrati ve procedures do not provide an adequa te remedy. Ho nig , 484 U.S. at 327 15 (stati ng that “par ents may bypass the administrati ve process where exhaust io n wou ld be 16 futil e o r in ad eq

uate” (ci ting Smi th v. Robinson , 4 68 U. S. 99 2, 10 14 n. 17 (19 84 ))) . In 17 Heldman , we ack

no wl ed ge d th at the exha

us tio n re qu ire m ent do es not ap ply “whe n p urs uit 18 of the adm ini str ati ve rem ed ies wo uld be futil e b eca

us e th e ag en cyeithe r w as actin g in 19 vio lat ion

of the lawor was unable to r em ed y th e al leg ed

inj ury .” Heldman , 96 2 F .2 d at 20 15 9. The part y seeking to avoi d exhaustion bea rs the burde n of showing futility. Po lera , 21 288 F.3d at 488 n.8 (cit ing Ho nig , 4 84 U. S. at 3 27 ). 22 Appellants have failed to demonstrate that theircase warrant s an exemption from the 23 exha

us tio n rul e. Ap pe llants argue that th ere wa s n o p oint in pursu inganadm ini str ati ve ap pe al 24 of t he fi nd in gs of the Sect ion 504 team or the decisi on of the CSE, because Dr. Robert Dillon, 25 the su

pe rinten de nt o f t

he sc ho ol d ist

ric t, i nit ial ly m ad e a d eci siv e re co mm en datio n a ga ins t 26 all ow ingthe do g to enter the sch oo l’s pre m ise s, a re co mm en datio n th at w ou ld a lle ge dly- 14 -

1 control the outcome of subsequent administrative r ev iew procedures

. Se e Br . o f A pp ell ants at 2 9. W eig hty

tho ug h this recom

m en datio n m ight have be enat t he ini tia l st ag es o f a

pp ell ants’ 3 co m pla int ag ain st the sch oo l, t

he re is not t he sl ightes t in dic ati on that th e su

pe rinten de nt w as 4 in any po s it io nto a f f e c t, le t a lo n e c o ntr o l, th e f urt h e r d e te rm in ati o n s b ylo c a l an d s tate 5 authorit ies. Appellant s were entit led, under the ID EA an d the New York Education Law, to a 6 du e p roc ess he ari ng , whic h w ou ld h av e b een co nd uc ted byanim

parti al h ear ingof

fi cer ; if 7 dis sat isf

ied wi th t he offic er’ s f

ind ing s, they

co uld have the n p urs ue d th eir

cla im s at the state 8 level before i nstitut ing a lawsuit

. Ca ve , 48 0 F . S up p. 2d at 6 36 (ci tin g N .Y . E du c. Law § 9 4404(1) – (2)) . The IDEA explicit ly requir es that the officer conducting t he h ea ri ng “ not be . . 10 . a pe rso n h aving a pe rso na l or pro fe ssi on al i nte res t th at c on fl ict s w iththe pe rso n’s ob jec tiv ity 11 in the hear ing.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)( A)(i)(I I). Absent any evi dence casti ng doubt on the 12 im parti ali ty o f t

he loc al o r th e st ate rev iewoff icers who wo uld

ex am ine ap pe llants ’ cl aim s, 13 we cannot presume that they would be biased. 14 In t

he pa st w e h av e ex cu sed exha us tio n in cas es i nv olv ing sys tem ic v iol ati on s th at 15 could not be re medied by local or stat e administrative agencies “be cause the framework and 1 6 pr o c e d

ure s f o r a s s e s s in g an d

p la c in g s tu d e nts i na

p p ro p ri ate e d

u c ati o n a l p ro g ram s w ere at 17 issue, or be ca us e th e nature and volume of com plaints wer e incapable of correction by t he 18 adm ini str ati ve he ari ngpro ces s. ” J. S. e x rel

. N. S. v . At tic a Cent. Sch

. , 3 8 6 F .3d 10 7 , 1 1 4 (2d C i r. 19 2004) . F or e xam

ple , in Jo se P . v . A mb ac h , 669 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1982), ac la ss ac tion by 20 hand ica

pp ed ch ild ren ch all en gin g N ewYo rk c ityand st ate ed uc ati on al a

uth ori tie s’ f

ail ure to 21 pro vid e th em

wi th a pp rop riate p ub lic ed

uc ati on , th e ci ty’s edu cat ion co mm iss ion er 22 acknowledged that“he would be un ab le t o expeditious ly process t he appeals of all the 23 m embers of

the pla int if

f c las s w ere the y to pursu e ad m ini str ati ve pro cee din gs .” Id. at 869. 24 Because of

thi s ad m iss ion an d th e co m

ple xit y o f t he ed uc ati on al i ssu es i nv olv ed , w e h eld that- 15 -

1 we “could not be sur e that re sort to st ate admini strati ve remedies would not be ‘futil e’ for 2 purpo ses of

ob tai nin g c las s re lie f. ” Id. Here, an indivi dual student complai ns about the 3 sch oo l’s de nia l of

his req ue st that a s erv ice do g b e p erm itt ed to accom

panyhim in c las s. 4 There is no al legation of a syst em-wide violation of the IDE A’ s mand at es or of a distri ct-wide 5 po lic y o f d isc rim inatio n a ga ins t he ari ng -im pa ire d s tud ents. No r do ap pe llants m ak e a 6 plaus ib le argum e nt t h at t h e a dm in is tr ati v e p ro c e s s is s o s tr u c tu ra ll yta inte d

th at t h e yw ou ld 7 not have been afforded a fair and i mpartial forum to present theirclaims. 8 W e conclude tha t appella nts were requi re d to first see k relief thr ough the 9 ad ministrat ive revie w procedures avai lable to t hem under the IDEA before proceeding with a 10 fe de ral law su it. W e sym pathi ze w iththe co nc ern s o f John, Jr.’s parents and the ir e ff ort to h elp 11 him

ov erc om e th e o bsta cle s p os ed byhis he ari ngim

pa irm ent. T he ir f

ed era l cl aim s, ho we ve r, 12 were not proper ly brought before the distri ct court. 13 In Mansfeld, Coldwate r & Lake Mic higan Ra ilway Co . v. Swan , 1 11 U. S. 37 9 (1 88 4), 14 the Supreme Court noted the exi stence of an “inflexi ble” rule that “withoutexc ep ti on” 15 requires federal court s, on their own motion, to determine if jurisdiction i s lacking. Id. at 382. 16 Issues re lating t o subject matter j urisd ic ti onmay be raised a t any time, even on appeal, and 17 ev enbythe co urt su a s po nte

. Li be rty Mut. I

ns . C o. v. Wet zel , 424 U.S. 737, 740 (1976). If a 18 co urt

pe rce ive s at

any s tag e o f t

he pro cee din gs that it

lac ks su bje ct matter jurisdic tio n, the n it 19 must take proper notic e of the defect by di smi ss in g the a ction. Id. Fe de ral Ru le o f C ivi l 2 0 Pr oc e d

ure 1 2 (h )( 3 ) p ro v id e s th at “ [ i] f th e c o urt d e te rm in e s at anyti m e th at i t l a c k s s ub jec t21 m att er j uri sd ict ion , th e co urt must dis m iss the act ion .” (E m ph asi s ad de d). W e therefore direc t 22 the dis tri ct c ourt t o dismiss without prejudi ce appella nts’ federal causes of action for l ack of 23 subject matter j urisdict ion. 24 B. ST AT E L AWCL AI MS 25- 16 -

1 W e have alre ady found that the dis trictcourt lac ks subject matter j uri sd iction 2 ov er a

p p e ll ants ’ f

e d e ra l c la im s . It

w o u ld th u s b e c le arl yin ap p ro p ri ate f o r t h e d is tri ct 3 court to r etain jur isdicti on over the s ta te l aw claims when there is no basi s for 4 su pp lem ental jur isd ict ion . 2 8 U .S .C . § 136 7(c )(3 ). “ Ce rta inl y, if the fe de ral cla im s ar e 5 dis m iss ed

be fo re trial

. . . th e st ate cla im s sh ou ld b e d ism iss ed as w ell .” United Mine 6 Workers of Am. v. Gibbs , 3 83 U. S. 71 5, 72 6 (1966) . The NewYo rk s tat e co urt s ar e, 7 af ter all, in the be st p os iti on to d ete rm ine the va lid ityof ap pe llants ’ no ve l st ate law 8 cla im s an d e nd ors e o r re jec t th eir readings of

ne wl y am en de d s tat e laws . D uri ngora l 9 argument, counsel for the appel lants acknowle dged that the dis missal of the current 10 federal lawsuitwould expedite t his desir able outcome, i.e

. , th e re solution of the state 11 cla im s byth e state co urt s. Consequently, appellant s’ state law claims should also be 12 dis m iss ed

wi tho ut p rejudice

. The di s mi s s al wi l l no tha ve a ny i mp ac ton the s t atut e of 13 l i mi t at i ons f

orthe s e cl ai ms , be ca us e, pu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U.S. C. § 1367 ( d) , the l i mi t at i ons pe r i od 14 is tolled w hile the claims are p en din g an d for 3 0 d ay s aft er they are dismissed

.- 17 -

1 III . C ON CL US ION 2 3 W e h old

that ap pe llants we re o bli ge d to exha us t the admi nis trativ e re m ed ies 4 av ail ab le und er the ID EAbe fo re f ili ngthe ir s uit

in t he dis tri ct court. Th eir

fa ilure t o 5 comply with this obligat ion deprivedt he distri ct court of subje ct matter juri sdiction 6 ov er the fe de ral causes of act ion , whic h m

us t be dis m iss ed . Abs ent an ind ep en de nt b asi s 7 fo r th e ex erc ise of

fe de ral jur isd ict ion , th e d istrict co urt canno t ad

jud icate the state l aw 8 claims, which musta ls o be dismissed. Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injuncti on 9 should there fore have been d ismissed for lack of jur isdicti on, rather t han on the ground 10 that ap pe llants are un lik ely to s uc cee d o n th e m eri ts o f t he ir a cti on. W e h av e co ns ide red 11 all of appella nts’ arguments and find them to be without merit. 12 Fo r th e re aso ns set fo rthab ov e, we rem an d th e case to t he dis tri ct c ourt 13 and directit to dis miss without prejudice appel la nt s’ complaint in its ent irety for la ck of 14 su bje ct m att er j uri sd ict ion ; an d w e d eny a pp ell ants’ m oti on

to certif y th e st ate law 15 iss ue s to the Ne w Y ork Co urt of Ap pe als

.