Court Opinion

ID: 9475092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:17:23.228681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:30.651730
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting,
I respectfully dissent. The majority decides that there was no independent due process challenge within the meaning of Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984). In my view it conflicts with the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in Manecke v. School Board of Pinellas County, 762 F.2d 912 (11th Cir.1985). The Eleventh Circuit there held that where a party is “denied due process by effectively being denied access to ‘the carefully tailored administrative and judicial mechanism’ found in the EHA, ... that party may seek relief under § 1983.” Id. at 918 (quoting Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. at 1008-09, 104 S.Ct. at 3468). Plaintiffs have been successful in this case on a similar claim that the state denied them the procedural mechanism of the EAHCA when it suspended them without determining whether their conduct was handicap related. I would not create a conflict in this regard and would hold that attorneys’ fees are awardable under section 1988.