Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2016/03/08/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:32:11+00:00

Document:
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Carroll v. Lawton Independent School District No. 8 on Tuesday, November 10, 2015.
AKC, a child with autism who has limited ability to communicate clearly, was in third grade when her parents discovered that her special education teacher, Vickie Cantrell, had been abusing her at school, including giving her a “wedgie” that caused AKC’s underwear to rip and placing her in a dark closet as punishment. As a result of Ms. Cantrell’s abuse, AKC lost academic abilities, refused to get out of the car at school, and developed severe behavioral problems.
AKC’s parents, Ted and Bella Carroll, filed suit, asserting numerous state law claims, including negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, conspiracy, and violation of due process under the Oklahoma Constitution. The Carrolls also brought federal claims under the ADA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983. All defendants moved to dismiss. The district court determined that the Carrolls’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims required exhaustion of administrative remedies for the alleged educational injuries as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and it dismissed those claims. The district court did not find an exhaustion requirement as to the § 1983 claims and allowed the Carrolls to amend those claims and others as against the school district and Ms. Cantrell.
The Carrolls amended their complaints to allege additional facts against the school district and Ms. Cantrell, and defendants again moved to dismiss. The district court again evaluated the Carrolls’ § 1983 claims and concluded that the complaint alleged educational harms, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies under IDEA. The district court dismissed the Carrolls’ amended complaint alleging § 1983 claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, thereby dismissing the complaint. The Carrolls appealed.
The Carrolls claimed the district court erred in dismissing their claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by IDEA. They contend their claims are not subject to IDEA’s exhaustion requirement or, alternatively, the district court abused its discretion in denying them leave to allege additional facts showing exhaustion. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. The IDEA creates a mandatory administrative framework for any complaints about the identification, evaluation, education, or placement of the child, which begins with an impartial due process hearing and continues with an appeal to the state educational agency. The Tenth Circuit noted that the focus of whether a claim requires exhaustion is on the source and nature of the injuries, not the requested remedy. The Tenth Circuit evaluated the Carrolls’ claims and found they alleged educational injuries, including that AKC suffered educational setbacks, refuses to go to school and becomes upset when she enters the school, and requires tutoring to restore her to her previous academic level. The Tenth Circuit found that these injuries were unambiguously educational in nature and therefore the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements applied.
The Tenth Circuit rejected the Carrolls’ arguement that the IDEA exhaustion requirement applies only to purely educational claims, noting that it has long recognized the close relationship between classroom discipline and instruction. The Tenth Circuit also rejected the Carrolls’ claim that they should be excused from the exhaustion requirement because it would fail to supply relief and would be futile. The Tenth Circuit characterized that argument as a restatement of their claims seeking relief from Ms. Cantrell’s conduct, and found that their request for only damages did not negate the requirement of pursuit of administrative remedies. The Tenth Circuit also noted that its resolution in favor of the district court’s conclusion also resolved the Carrolls’ claim that the district court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court’s dismissal.
The Carrolls also argued that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing them to further amend their complaint to show their exhaustion attempts. The Tenth Circuit first found that the Carrolls failed to formally request leave to amend, instead asking for leave to amend as an alternative to dismissal. The Tenth Circuit further found that the Carrolls failed to allege with specificity the additional facts that would be included in an amended complaint. Instead, the Carrolls set forth only categories of allegations that could be pleaded, not specific facts supporting the allegations. The Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion.
On Monday, March 7, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

References: v. 
 § 504
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983