Opinion ID: 2169865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Agency Prevention

Text: [E]xhaustion is not normally required where the agency has prevented the litigant from pursuing [his or] her claim at the administrative level. Pihl, 9 F.3d at 190-91. Prevention in this context has been interpreted as an agency's unwilling[ness] to provide any further    proceedings to exhaust. Ezratty v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 648 F.2d 770, 775 (1st Cir.1981). The plaintiff's own pleadings demonstrate that the department of education was willing to continue the administrative process. For example, the hearing officer attempted to schedule hearings on the evenings of January 20, 21, and 22, 2004, to prevent further delay. Furthermore, the fact that a hearing was held in February, after plaintiff had filed his civil action, demonstrates the department of education's continued willingness to retain jurisdiction over this dispute. Rather than illustrate how the department of education's actions prevented him from further availing himself of the administrative process, plaintiff attempts to bootstrap the alleged misconduct of the school department into an argument that the administrative proceedings would have been futile. Although plaintiff cites cases from various jurisdictions to support his argument, this Court is reluctant to adopt a fifth exceptionfor school department misconductto the exhaustion doctrine. Furthermore, even if we adopted a school department misconduct exception to the exhaustion doctrine, we do not think that the incidents outlined in plaintiff's complaint reveal a pattern of misconduct or bad faith. As alleged instances of that, plaintiff's complaint pointed to the school department's misrepresentation that two experts would be available at the October 2 meeting, and the school department attorney's failure to notify the principal at plaintiff's school that another expert would observe plaintiff in anticipation of the hearings scheduled for January. Although these two incidents may be examples of incompetence or inattention, they do not suggest a sinister motive on behalf of the school department to thwart plaintiff's attempts to implement an updated IEP and thereby deny plaintiff a free, appropriate public education. Cf. Schaffer, 126 S.Ct. at 537 (Stevens, J., concurring) (I believe that we should presume that public school officials are properly performing their difficult responsibilities under [the IDEA].). To summarize, we hold that, even when we assume all the well-pleaded facts in plaintiff's complaint to be true, plaintiff has failed to allege facts that could support a conclusion that, in this case, he should not be required to exhaust the administrative proceedings afforded by the department of education. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that none of the four recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement could apply in this case. In reaching that conclusion, we preserve the integrity of the procedural scheme created by the IDEA. We must pause, however, to clarify that this opinion should not be read to imply that this Court condones the actions of the school department and the department of education. In fact, this Court is gravely concerned about and abhors the delays that took place before the department of education. Furthermore, we think parties must hire attorneys who are available so that proceedings may be completed in a timely fashion. Necessary administrative processes must not become bureaucratic nightmares reminiscent of Kafka in which the claims of individual citizens largely are ignored. [11] We are keenly aware, especially after reading the amicus brief authored by the Asperger's Association of New England, of the many ways in which Asperger's Syndrome seriously impedes the education of a young child. Accordingly, an IEP designed to foster a more fertile learning environment for a child suffering from that disability must be formulated and implemented with a great sense of urgency. Had such a sense of urgency been in place here, then some of the delaysespecially those in November through January of the school yearcould have been avoided. To that end, we direct the department of education, with the cooperation of the school department, to afford the plaintiff a comprehensive due process hearing forthwith. At that hearing, a hearing officer will determine, among other corollary issues, what IEP should have been implemented in the past, and should be implemented for the future, so that plaintiff may receive a free, appropriate public education pursuant to the IDEA. That due process hearing will be held forthwith, with no further continuances, and regardless of any scheduling conflicts of attorneys or hearing officers. And, at that hearing, we expect that all the parties will set aside any lingering acrimony in an effort to create a cooperative and productive environment as envisioned by the IDEA. The plaintiff deserves that much.