2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C ircuit 1-13-2009 

# M .S . G . v . Len ap e Region al High P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1567

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M .S . G . v . L e n ape Re gion al High" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2053. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009/2053H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es C ourtof * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 1567

_____________ M . S . - G. , I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND BY HI S P AR E NT S AND L E GAL G U A R D IA N S , K .S .-G . A N D J .S .-G ., A p p e llan ts v. LE NAPE REGI ONA L HI GH SCHOOL DI S TRI CT BO A RD O F ED U CA TI O N a nd D A N I EL H I CK S, I ND I VI DU ALLY AN D I N H I S OFF I CI AL C APA CI TY

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 2847) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph H . R odr i guez

___________ A r gued M ar ch 26, 2008

___________ B efor e: M cK ee, R endel l , and Tashi m a, C i r cui tJudges * ( Fi l ed: J anuary13, 2009)

___________

### -2 -

J a m ie E p s te in , E s q . ( ARGUE D) 11 01 R ou t e 70 W est C herryH i l l , N J 08002 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts W a lte r F . K a w a le c , E s q . ( ARGUE D) R i char d L . G ol ds t ei n, E s q. M a rsh a ll, D e n n e h e y , W a rn e r, C o lem a n & G o g g in 20 0 L ake D ri ve E ast Sui t e 300 C herryH i l l , N J 08012 C ouns el f orAppel l ees

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ T A S H IM A , C i r cui tJudge : M . S . - G. , a h i g h s c h o o l s tu d e n t , a l o n g wi th h i s p a r e n t s , J . S . - G. a n d K. S . - G. ( col l ect i vel y“M . S. - G . ”) , appea l the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s di s m i s s al of M . S. - G . ’ s act i on, br oughtunderthe I ndi vi dual s w i th D i s abi l i t i es E ducat i on A ct( “I D E A ”) 20 U . S. C . § 1400 et s eq. , Sect i on 504 of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973, 29 U . S. C . § 794, and the N ew J er s eyL aw A gai ns tD i s cr i m i nat i on, N . J . St at . A nn. § 10: 5- 1, agai ns tL enape R egi onal H i gh School D i s tr i ctand D ani el H i cks , Super i nt endent( col l ect i vel y“Lenape” ) , s t emm i ng fr om hi s s us pens i on fr om Shaw nee H i gh School . T he A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) co n d u cti n g M . S . -G . ’s du e p roc ess h ea ri n g tw ice d ism issed M . S . -G . ’s pe ti ti o n fo r fa il u re to sa ti sfythe ID E A p lead ing req u ir em en ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed M . S . -G . ’sA l though the D i s tr i ctC ourtm us templ oya modi fi ed de novo r evi ew of the 1 d e c is io n s o f

a n a d m in is tr a tiv e f

a c t f in d e r, s ee S .H

. v. S ta te- O

p e ra tedSc h . D ist. o

f th e C ity of N ew ark , 336 F. 3d 260, 270–71 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and w e, i n turn, r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r, s ee Shor e Reg’ lHigh Sch. B d. of E duc. v. P . S. ex r el P . S. , 381 F. 3d 194, 199 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , no s uch def er ence i s cal l ed forw hen the d e c i s i o n s o f

th e AL J a n d Di s tr i c tCo u rti n v o l v e o n l yq u e s t i o n s o f l a w. 

### -3 - co m p lai n t on the s am e g rou n d . W e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e c i s i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we wi l l a f f i rm. B ecaus e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our anal y s i s of the i s s ues pr es ent ed on appe al . W e r evi ew de novo the di s m i s s al of a c o m p la in t u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )( 6 ). P hi l l i ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n s o doi ng, w e “a cce ptal l fac tual al l egat i ons as true, cons true the compl ai nti n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” I

d. at 23 3 (i n terna l ci tat ion an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). 1 M . S. - G . cont ends thatthe A L J and D i s tr i ctC ourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai nt forfai l ur e t o conform t o the I D E A ’ s pl eadi ng s t andar ds . O n J une 5, 2006, M . S. - G . fi l ed a d u e p r o c e s s c o mp l a i n twi th th e Ne w J e r s e yOf f i c e o f S p e c i a l Ed u c a t i o n P r o g r a ms r eques t i ng r el i ef unde rthe I D E A . T he fol l ow i ng t extcompri s ed the ent i r etyof the J une 5 com plai nt’ s subst anti ve all egati on s: Fai l ur e of r es pondentt o: ( a) m ai nt ai n M . S. - G . i n hi s curr entpl ace m entaft er 1 0 d a y s o f

su sp e n sio n d u rin g th e c u rre n t sc h o o l y e a r in re m e d yf o r sa id

### -4 -

fai l ur es w e s eek c om pens at oryeduca t i on and an or derr equi r i ng r es pondent t o r e turn a nd mai nt a i n M . S. - G . i n h i s c urr e ntpl a c e ment ; ( b) t o p r ov i de M SG w i th a ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on forw hi ch w e s eek a n i ndepende nt ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on, ( c) t o pr oper l yaddr es s M . S. - G ’ s drug depende ncyas a mani fes t at i on of hi s educa t i onal handi cap i n hi s I E P forw hi ch w e s eek s ai d corr ect i on t o M S- G ’ s I E P as a r emedy . ( d) fai l ur e t o eval uat e M S- G for a n d p r o v i d e h i m w i th a p o s i t i v e b e h a v i o ri n t e rv e n t i o n p l a n f o rwh i c h we s e e k s a m e a s a r e m e d y. ( punctuat i on err or s i n or i gi nal ) . T he A L J found thatthe compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e the r eas on forM . S. - G . ’ s s us pens i on, ordes cr i be M . S. - G . ’ s i ndi vi dual i zed e ducat i on pr ogr am (“ IE P ” ) a n d h is “ c u rre n t p lac e m e n t.” It a lso f a iled to in c lu d e f

a c tu a l d e tails r e lev a n t to M .S .-G .’s re q u e ste d re m e d ies , su c h a s c irc u m sta n c e s w h ich m ig h t n e c e ss itate a re tu rn to h is c u rre n t p lac e m e n t, an d f a c ts in d ica tin g w h e th e r h e c o m m u n ica ted w ith th e d e f e n d a n ts a b o u t th e p ro p o se d p sy c h iatric e v a lu a tio n , o r w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n ts re f

u se d to acc om m odat e the r eques t . T he A L J encour aged the part i es t o comm uni cat e and t o m ake a go od fai th eff

ortt o resol ve thei r di fferences. O n J une 13, 2006, M . S. - G . s ubm i tt ed a s econd pe t i t i on foran expe di t ed due pr oces s hear i ng. T he al l egat i ons i n the s econd pe t i t i on w er e much the s ame, exce ptthat M . S . -G . add ed the foll ow i ng detai l s: M . S. - G . [i s ] a 10th gr ade s tudenti n a s el f cont ai ned pl ace m entatShaw nee H ig h S c h o o l . . . . M . S. - G . w as s us pended f or10 day s on 5/ 31/ 06 how everr es pondenthas r efus ed t o al l ow hi m t o r eturn t o hi s curr entpl ace m ent . A ddi t i onal l y , he w as su sp en d ed 5 /23 /06 fo r 2 d ay s, o n 5 /9/06 fo r 3 d ay s, o n 3 /10 /06 fo r 3

### -5 -

day s, on 2/10/ 06 for 2 d ay s, on 2/2/ 06 for 1 d ay , on 1/5/ 06 for 5 d ay s, 1 / 6 / 0 6 f o r2 d a ys , o n 1 1 / 3 0 / 0 5 f o r1 d a y, a n d o n 1 2 / 7 / 0 5 f o r1 d a y. A l though the r emedi es r eques t ed w er e s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame, M . S. - G . s l i ght l yal t er ed the w o rd in g a n d f

o rm a t o f th e re q u e st: (a ) c o m p e n sa to rye d u c a tio n f o r th e d a y s in w h ich h e w a s im p ro p e rly r emoved; (b ) a n o rd e r re q u irin g re sp o n d e n t to re tu rn a n d m a in tain M .S .-G . in h is c u rre n t p lac e m e n t; ( c) an appr opr i at e ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on; ( d) forM . S. - G . t o be eva l uat ed forand pr ovi ded w i th a pos i t i ve beha vi or interve n ti o n p lan[ ]; (e ) a n d to p ro p e rlyid e n tifyb e h a v io rs w h ich a re a m a n if e sta tio n o f

h is educa t i onal handi cap ( i ncl udi ng hi s drug depende ncy ) i n hi s I E P t o be p rog ram m ed fo r an d n o t be d isci p li n ed fo r. O n J une 16, 2006, the A L J di s m i s s ed the s econd pe t i t i on forfai l ur e s uffi ci ent l yt o sta te a c laim . A lth o u g h h e re c o g n ize d th a t M .S .-G . n o w p ro v id e d th e d a tes o f h is s u s p e n s i o n s , th e l e tt e rs t i l l f a i l e d t o a l l e g e f

a c t s th a two u l d j u s t i f

ya f i n d i n g th a tM . S . - G. w a s w ro n g f

u llyre m o v e d f

ro m o r e n tit led to re tu rn to h is c u rre n t p lac e m e n t. O n J anuary24, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed Lenape’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s bas ed o n M . S . -G . ’s fa il u re to c o n fo rm to the ID E A p lead ing req u ir em en ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ounded i t s hol di ng on the fa i l ur e of the admi ni s tr at i ve compl ai nt s t o s t at e “w hythe s chool s us pended M . S. - G . [, ] ” “the natur e of M . S. - G . ’ s pr obl em and how i tr el at es t o the s u s p e n s io n s [ ,]” a n d h o w th e p ro p o s e d s o lu tio n s w ill “ re s o lv e th e p ro b le m .” W e c o n c lu d e th a t M .S .-G . fa iled to sa tisf yth e p lea d in g re q u ire m e n ts s e t f o rth in

### -6 -

the I D E A . T he I D E A r equi r es s t at e and l ocal educa t i onal agenc i es r ece i vi ng fede r al e d u c a tio n f

u n d s to “ e sta b lish a n d m a in tain p ro c e d u re s . . . to e n su re th a t ch ild re n w ith di s abi l i t i es and thei rpar ent s ar e guar ant eed pr ocedur al s afe guar ds w i th r es pectt o the pr ovi s i on of a f

r ee appr opr i at e publ i c educ at i on . . . . ” 20 U . S. C . § 1415( a) . O ne s uch p ro c e d u re is th e o p p o rtu n ityto p re se n t a c o m p lain t “w ith re sp e c t to a n ym a tter r e latin g to the i dent i fi cat i on, eval uat i on, oreduca t i onal pl ace m entof the chi l d . . . . ” I d. § 1 4 1 5 (b )(6 )(A ); see al

so 34 C . F. R . § 300. 507( a) ( 1) ( 2007) . T he compl ai ntm us tpr ovi de not i ce t o the oppos i ng party , i ncl udi ng “( I I I ) a des cr i pt i on of the natur e of the pr obl em of the chi l d r el at i ng t o s uch pr opos ed i ni t i at i on orchange , i ncl udi ng fac t s r el at i ng t o s uch p ro b lem ; an d (IV ) a p ro p o se d re so lu tio n o f th e p ro b lem to th e e x ten t k n o w n a n d a v a ilab le to th e p a rtya t th e tim e .” 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (b )(7 )(A )(ii)(III)

– (IV ); see al so 3 4 C .F .R . § 300. 508( b) ( 5) –( 6) . M . S. - G . fai l ed t o pr ovi de a de s cr i pt i on of the na ture of the pr obl em th a t in c lu d e d f

a c ts; h e m e re lyid e n tifie d th e p ro b lem , in th is c a se , h is m u lti p le suspensi on s. W e al so rej ectM . S . -G . ’s sugg est i on that the S up rem e C ou rt ’s descri pti on of these pl eadi ng s t andar ds as “mi ni m al ” i n Sch aff er ex rel . Sch aff

er v. W east , 546 U . S. 49, 55 ( 2006) , s om ehow convert s the s peci fi c s t atut orypr ovi s i on i nt o a bar e not i ce pl eadi ngL ik e w is e , Es cam bi a C ount y Bd. of E duc. v. B enton , 406 F. Supp. 2d. 1248 2 ( S. D . A l a. 2005) , does notbearthe w ei ghtof M . S. - G . ’ s ar gum ent . T hatdeci s i on sp e c if ica llya c k n o w led g e d th e ID E A ’s r e q u ire m e n t th a t th e c o m p lain t in c lu d e f a c ts re la tin g to th e c la im e d p ro b le m s . I d. at1259. T he courtconcl uded, how ever , thats uch a r e q u i r e me n twa s s a t i s f

i e d a s t o th e p a rt i c u l a rc h a l l e n g e t o a n I EP r a i s e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me ata due pr oces s hear i ng w hen the pl ai nt i ff r ai s ed s ever al otherdi s t i nctchal l enges t o the s a m e IE P in h is c o m p la in t. I d. at1260. 

### -7 - re q u ire m e n t. Schaf

f erdi d notconfr ontthe i s s ue athand. M or eover , the purpos e of the 2 s t a tu t e t o f

o s t e rc o o p e r a t i o n b e tw e e n th e p a r e n t s a n d e d u c a t i o n a l a g e n c y i s s e rv e d b y a devel opm entof the fa ctual bas i s forthe di s put e pr i ort o the i ni t i at i on of adve r s ar i al p ro c e e d in g s . See i d. a t 5 3 (“ T h e c o re o f th e sta tu te . . . i s th e c o o p e ra tiv e p ro c e ss th a t it estab li sh es b etw ee n p are n ts an d sch o o ls. ”). M . S. - G . does notcont es tthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s § 1983 and s t at e l aw c la im s . See Skretvedt v. E . I. D uP on tD e N em ou rs , 372 F. 3d 193, 202–03 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (“ W e h a v e h e ld o n n u m e ro u s o c c a sio n s th a t an iss u e is w a iv e d u n les s a p a rtyra ise s it in its o p e n in g b rie f

, an d f o r th o se p u rp o se s a p a ss in g re f e re n c e to a n iss u e w ill n o t su f f ice to b ri n g th a t is s u e b e f

o re th is c o u rt .” ) ( c ita tio n , q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a n d a lte ra tio n o m itte d ). W e ther efor e dee m thos e i s s ues w ai ved. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.