MCDOWELL v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 11/01/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Report and Recommendation) (lckbj3, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEVEN SCHIFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 18-cv-1382 (KBJ)
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Steven Schiff 1 brings this action on behalf of his ward, Ricardo
McDowell, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). (See
Compl., ECF No. 1.) 2 In 2018, Plaintiff pursued a due process complaint against the
District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) alleging that McDowell had been denied
a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), as required by the IDEA, when DCPS
failed to identify a new location of services following McDowell’s expulsion from his
nonpublic school. (See AR, ECF No. 8-1, at 3.) On March 15, 2018, a Hearing Officer
with the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education
determined that McDowell had not been denied a FAPE. (See id.at 15–16.)
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the District of Columbia
This action was originally commenced by Yvette McDowell, the mother and co-guardian of the
student at issue in this matter. Following notice of her death, on October 9, 2019, this Court granted
Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Party and substituted co-guardian Steven Schiff for Ms. McDowell as
the plaintiff in this matter. (See Minute Order of Oct. 9, 2019.)
1
Page numbers herein refer to those that the Court’s electronic case filing system automatically
assigns.
2
(“Defendant”) seeking a reversal of the Hearing Officer Determination and remand of
the case to “determine the appropriate amount of compensatory education to remedy the
[alleged] denial of FAPE[.]” (See Compl. at 5.)
On June 12, 2018, this Court referred this matter to a Magistrate Judge for full
case management. (See Min. Order of June 12, 2018.) On September 24, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to reverse the Hearing
Officer Determination and to remand the matter for further proceedings, arguing that
the Hearing Officer erred as a matter of law when he found that there had been no
denial of a FAPE because DCPS had tried but had been unable to find a new placement
for McDowell. (See Pl.’s Mem. of Points & Auths. in Support of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ.
J., ECF No. 10-1, at 4–5.) Thereafter, on October 29, 2018, Defendant filed a crossmotion for summary judgment, arguing that the Court should affirm the Hearing Officer
Determination, on the grounds that it is impossible to provide McDowell a FAPE due to
an inability to find any school willing to accept him, and that McDowell has “unclean
hands” given the violent behavior which lead to his expulsion. (Def.’s Mem. in Supp.
of Def.’s Cross Mot. for Summ. J. & Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 13, at
8–12.)
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that the assigned
Magistrate Judge, Deborah A. Robinson, filed regarding the parties’ cross motions for
summary judgment. (See R. & R., ECF No. 19.) 3 The Report and Recommendation
reflects Magistrate Judge Robinson’s opinion that Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment be granted, and that Defendant’s cross motion must be denied. (See id. at 17.)
3
The Report and Recommendation, which is 17 pages long, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
2
Specifically, Magistrate Judge Robinson finds that Plaintiff has met his burden that the
administrative record as a whole does not support the Hearing Officer Determination
and that the Hearing Officer erred in finding that the law only required DCPS to take
“prompt action” to find a new placement rather than obligating it to provide Mr.
McDowell a FAPE. (See id. at 10–11.) Magistrate Judge Robinson also finds that the
defense of impossibility does not apply in this case, and that Defendant has not made
the required showing of an unexpected occurrence or of actual and objective
impossibility. Magistrate Judge Robinson further finds that the doctrine of unclean
hands does not apply, because the application of that doctrine would undermine the
purpose of the IDEA. (See id. at 11–16.)
In addition to articulating these conclusions, Magistrate Judge Robinson’s Report
and Recommendation also advises the parties that either party may file written
objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must include the portions of the
findings and recommendations to which each objection is made and the basis for each
such objection. (Id. at 17.) The Report and Recommendation further advises the
parties that failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of further review of the
matters addressed in the Report and Recommendation. (Id.) Under this Court’s local
rules, any party who objects to a Report and Recommendation must file a written
objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of the Report
and Recommendation. LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections to be filed in the
instant case has passed, and none have been filed.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Robinson’s report and agrees with her
thorough analysis and conclusions. Thus, the Court will ADOPT the Report and
3
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment will be GRANTED, and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
will be DENIED.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: November 1, 2019
Ketanji Brown Jackson
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?