Opinion ID: 3061485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rance’s Complaint

Text: On July 27, 2009, Rance filed a civil complaint against DVR, proceeding under 29 U.S.C. § 722(c)(5)(J). His complaint alleged three counts, of which only the first two remain relevant on appeal.4 Liberally construed, Count I alleged that DVR failed to allow additional evidence in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 361.57(g)(3)(i) because DVR refused to consider Rance’s additional exhibits. Count II alleged that DVR failed to provide vocational rehabilitation benefits in a lawful manner consistent with 29 U.S.C. § 722(b)(1)(A)(i) because DVR refused to execute the purportedly approved IPE. Attached to Rance’s complaint was his certificate of eligibility from DVR, case notes from his IPE, an October 13, 2006 letter from DVR informing him that a final order had been issued from the agency, and a November 6, 2006 letter from DVR informing him that his file had been closed. The October 13, 2006 letter 4 The district court granted DVR’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Count III, and Rance did not appeal that dismissal. 8 stated that, consistent with the administrative determination, Rance would be required to undergo a psychological exam and to take the TABE if he wished to pursue the computer course. After more motions were filed, Rance submitted the exceptions and additional evidence he had submitted unsuccessfully to DVR. The district court took judicial notice of the submissions except for the legal authority submissions, as they were not evidence.