Rivera v. Fremont Union High School District et al

Filing 47

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on August 30, 2013. (ejdlc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

CARLOS RIVERA,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-05714-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

18
On June 26, 2013, this court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be
19
dismissed for failure to join a necessary party, the Fremont Union High School District
20
(“FUHSD”). Dkt. No. 43. Having thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefing, the court determines
21
that FUHSD is a necessary party, and Plaintiff having failed to show otherwise, the court
22
DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
23
The following background is taken from the court’s previous Order. On November 7,
24
2012, Plaintiff Carlos Rivera (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against FUHSD, the California
25
Department of Education (“CDE”), and the State of California, Office of Administrative Hearings
26
(“OAH”) alleging, in relevant part, that FUHSD denied his son (“the Student”) a free appropriate
27
public education (“FAPE”) in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
28
1
Case No.: 5:12-CV-05714-EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

1

(“IDEA”) and that CDE indirectly deprived his son of a FAPE by failing to ensure compliance with

2

the IDEA in California. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 76-91, 102-112. Prior to the initiation of this action and

3

as required by the IDEA, Plaintiff filed a due process complaint with OAH against FUHSD and

4

CDE alleging a denial of FAPE. See Dkt. No. 26-2; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). The administrative law

5

judge (“ALJ”) dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint against each defendant, finding that Plaintiff did not

6

have standing to bring an action against FUHSD on behalf of his son and that OAH did not have

7

jurisdiction over the claims against CDE. See Dkt. Nos. 26-7 and 26-8. Plaintiff then filed this

8

action pursuant to the IDEA, which authorizes “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision

9

made under this subsection…to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

pursuant to this section.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Here, Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of an

11

order overruling the ALJ’s orders in their entirety, a remand of Plaintiff’s claims against FUHSD to

12

the OAH for a hearing on the merits, an order requiring CDE to develop residential placements for

13

special education students aged 18 through 22 in California, an order requiring CDE to enact

14

procedures to ensure compliance with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(m)(2), and attorney fees and costs. See

15

Dkt. No. 1.

16

Since the filing of the Complaint, the Student has designated Plaintiff as his representative

17

with regard to decisions involving his education and related services. See Dkt. No. 43-1.

18

Additionally, the Student has been placed in a residential facility in Texas and the parties have

19

stipulated to dismiss FUHSD from this case with prejudice. See Dkt. Nos. 39, 43. The parties also

20

agreed to dismiss OAH without prejudice. See Dkt. No. 41. Thus, all that remain are two impact

21

litigation claims against CDE: first, a claim that CDE failed to provide an adequate procedure to

22

allow an adult to hold a student’s educational rights when a student is determined to lack the ability

23

to provide informed consent regarding educational decisions, and second, that CDE failed to

24

provide an in-state residential facility for students aged 18-22.

25

In its Order to Show Cause, the court expressed doubts as to the viability of this action as it

26

is currently presented. Particularly, the court raised concerns that without a determination on the

27

merits by the ALJ in this action, i.e. without a finding that this particular Student, whom Plaintiff

28

now properly represents, was denied a FAPE, the court cannot order CDE to effectuate the
2
Case No.: 5:12-CV-05714-EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

1

systemic changes requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that these claims may proceed because

2

he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to CDE and because FUHSD is not a necessary

3

party as it cannot enact the systemic changes that Plaintiff seeks. The court disagrees. In an IDEA

4

case such as this one, Plaintiff’s claims against each defendant cannot be so simply distinguished.

5

That Plaintiff has dismissed his claims regarding the provision of a FAPE to the Student

6

and is now only pursuing statewide impact claims 1 does not eviscerate Article III’s standing

7

requirements. See Lujan v. Defendars of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61 (1992). Here, a finding

8

that the Student has been denied a FAPE in the ways identified by Plaintiff would likely constitute

9

the requisite injury necessary to proceed on the systemic claims against CDE. However, under the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IDEA, an administrative due process hearing—not an action in the district court—is the

11

appropriate forum for making such initial determinations. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6)(A),

12

(f)(1)(A); i(2)(C). Moreover, as FUHSD, not CDE, is the public agency with decision-making

13

authority as to the Student’s education, it would be a necessary party to any such due process

14

proceedings. See Cal. Educ. Code § 56501(a).

15

That the ALJ previously dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint against FUHSD is of no moment.

16

The ALJ based the dismissal on standing grounds: at the time, Plaintiff did not hold the Student’s

17

educational rights and thus could not represent the Student. See Dkt. No. 26-7. As Plaintiff has

18

since corrected that deficiency, he could now properly proceed with a due process hearing. The

19

ALJ contemplated these exact circumstances in her order, providing that the dismissal is “without

20

prejudice to allow Parent to refile the case should Parent ever become the holder of educational

21

rights for Student.” Id.

22

Additionally, that the ALJ dismissed CDE for lack of jurisdiction does not under these

23

circumstances entitle Plaintiff to go forward with his impact claims in this forum. While any

24

remanded proceedings would likely go forward with only FUHSD as a defendant, such a

25

proceeding on the merits as to this individual Student is nevertheless necessary in order to exhaust

26

1

27
28

Plaintiff’s arguments in his Opening Brief Re: Order to Show Cause that the Student’s Texas placement is
inappropriate does not change the court’s analysis. These claims are contained neither in the Complaint nor in the
original due process complaint filed in OAH. At a minimum, Plaintiff would be required to amend the Complaint so
that it could reflect his current claims and arguments. However, for the same reasons as discussed herein, a
determination on the merits of these new claims by an ALJ would be required before this court could proceed.

3
Case No.: 5:12-CV-05714-EJD
ORDER DISMISSING CASE