Opinion ID: 169281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Futility and Inadequate Relief

Text: 32 In Romer we recognized that [e]xhaustion is not required . . . where it would be futile or fail to provide adequate relief. 992 F.2d at 1044. In that case the plaintiffs, suing under the IDEA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claimed that the CDE had denied them individualized IEPs because its policies arbitrarily predetermine[d] the duration of [extended-school-day] and ESY services and use[d] a single criterion to determine eligibility for ESY services. Id. at 1043. We held that exhaustion for these claims was not excused under the futility or inadequate-relief exceptions. We said that [a]dministrative remedies are generally inadequate or futile where plaintiffs allege structural or systemic failure and seek systemwide reforms. Id. at 1044. And we included dictum that exhaustion is not required where plaintiffs assert violations of the IDEA's due process provisions, id., apparently referring to such matters as notice and fair hearing procedures, see Heldman ex rel. T.H. v. Sobol, 962 F.2d 148, 159 (2d Cir.1992) (impartiality of hearing officer). Romer, however, declared that the claims before the court did not target structural or due process concerns, but rather the effect of a single component of CDE's educational program on individual children's IEPs. 992 F.2d at 1044. This is not, we said, the kind of systemic violation that renders the exhaustion requirement inadequate or futile . . . . Id. 33 In our view Romer requires the same conclusion here. Central to the allegations of the plaintiffs in both Romer and this case is the question of the extent of ESY services. As in Romer, Joshua's allegations focus on the effect of a single component of CDE's education program on individual children's IEPs. Id. The overriding consideration is whether it is clear at the outset that the administrative procedure under the IDEA could not provide Joshua with the FAPE to which he is entitled. Only then could we say that pursuing administrative remedies would be futile or lead to inadequate relief. Because we have no factual record on Joshua's specific condition or needs, we can hardly say that the District would inevitably deny the FAPE that it should provide him. Accordingly, neither the futility exception nor the inadequate-relief exception to the exhaustion requirement excuses the failure to exhaust administrative remedies for Joshua. 34