Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180118_0000735.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-02-23 06:26:35
Document Index: 2982130

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 504', '§ 1915', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 1983', '§ 504', '§ 1346', '§ 504', '§ 701']

This case arises out of a school district's alleged failure to properly accommodate a disabled child. Plaintiff Terria McKnight has brought the case in pro se on behalf of her minor child (“the Child”). Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss and two motions to amend.
Plaintiff attached the original Complaint to her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Complaint alleged violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). Plaintiff had filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) on August 5, 2015, complaining that the Lyon County School District (“LCSD”) had failed to provide her son with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) by failing to provide him with an aide. She also complained of the way OCR handled her case. Upon screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) to grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis, strike the prayer for damages against OCR under § 504, dismiss the § 504 and ADA claims with leave to amend, permit the retaliation claim to proceed, and dismiss the remaining claims with prejudice. The Court adopted the R&R, and the Clerk filed the Complaint.
After the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R, but before the Court ruled on it, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Court struck that pleading because there was no leave to file it. Immediately after the Clerk filed the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a new Amended Complaint (“AC”) as of right. The Magistrate Judge did not screen the AC and issued a summons with the unscreened AC attached thereto. The Nevada Department of Education (“NDOE”), Will Jensen, and Marva Cleven moved to dismiss the AC. The Court granted the motion, with leave to amend in part. The Court dismissed the sixth cause of action (titled “doctrine of exhaustion”) as against all Defendants and dismissed any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as against NDOE, without leave to amend. The Court dismissed Lyon County as a Defendant in accordance with Plaintiff's separately filed clarification.
Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), listing three claims (§ 504 of the ADA, Title II of the ADA, and retaliation) against “Seattle Office of Civil Rights, ” Linda Mangel, Tania Lopez, Paul Goodwin, Monique Malson, Caitlin Burks, Monique Malson (collectively, “Federal Defendants”), and NDOE. Mangel, Lopez, Goodwin, Burks, and Malson are attorneys for OCR, which Plaintiff refers to as “Seattle Office of Civil Rights.” Federal Defendants have moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, improper service of process, and failure to state a claim. NDOE has separately moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff has identified no waiver of sovereign immunity, and without one the United States and its employees are immune from suit. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994); Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). In response, Plaintiff invokes the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (creating jurisdiction in the district court for civil claims arising out of the negligence of a federal employee causing injury, death, or loss of property). But Plaintiff has pled no such injury. She has complained of dissatisfaction with administrative investigation and enforcement. The allegedly wrongful failure to enforce a statute or regulation does not constitute injury or loss of property under the FTCA. And claims that OCR did not properly enforce § 504 or related laws are not subject to district court review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See Pudlin v. OCR, 186 F.Supp.3d 288, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Enforcement decisions are exempt from APA review. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 838 (1985) (holding that agency refusals to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings is within the discretionary exception to 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)). Federal Defendants are entitled to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.