Opinion ID: 748839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mallett's other claims

Text: 38 Mallett asserts that DVR violated its own procedures 7 in closing his file. Specifically, he alleges that his DVR supervisor failed to certify that Mallett was not capable of graduating from law school in violation of § 722(c) 8 and that he was unable to submit additional evidence in his appeal to an impartial hearing officer in violation of § 722(d)(2). 9 Unlike Mallett's claim against DVR Policy 5.9.4., however, these claims do not assert that DVR has failed to establish a plan that satisfies the Rehabilitation Act requirements. Mallett just alleges that DVR fails to satisfy these federal requirements in its handling of his case. 39 This Court in Clifton refused to permit a plaintiff to use § 1983 in this manner. See 969 F.2d at 285. Spending Clause statutes like the Rehabilitation Act do not afford beneficiaries of the underlying state plan a right to enforce every transgression of federal requirements to receive funding. The Rehabilitation Act's established set of administrative procedures are sufficient to protect against a supervisor or a hearing officer who fails to comply with agency procedures. We see no reason to alter the application of Clifton's holding in this instance. 40 Mallett also suggests that there is a binding obligation upon DVR, under § 722(b), to give him an individualized IWRP which allows [financial] assistance at institutions of higher learning. Appellant's Br. at 15. This argument, however, is fundamentally flawed as Congress did not provide this right. Section 722(b) only includes the right to an individualized written rehabilitation program [that] is jointly developed, agreed upon and signed by ... such eligible individual ... and ... the rehabilitation counselor. 29 U.S.C. § 722(b)(1)(A) (emphasis supplied); see Buchanan v. Ives, 793 F.Supp. 361, 366 (D.Me.1991) ( '[J]oint' participation does not mean giving a client the final or exclusive decision making authority to determine his own goal.). Furthermore, § 722(b) provides a handicapped individual with an IWRP that is designed to achieve the employment objective of the individual, consistent with the unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities, of the individual. Id. § 722(b)(1)(B)(i). There is no provision within § 722(b), however, or within any other section of Title I, that guarantees a handicapped individual the right to financial assistance at an institution of higher learning. 10 41 Thus, most of Mallett's claims do not satisfy the first portion of our analysis. However, Mallett may contend that DVR's policy disfavoring graduate school funding violates rights guaranteed in 29 U.S.C. § 722 and enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as long as Congress did not foreclose private enforcement of Title I. 42