Motyka et al v. Howell Public School District

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHAWN MOTYKA and JULIE MOTYKA,
individuals; and SHAWN MOTYKA, as Next
Friend for K.M.,

Case No. 14-10559
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

Plaintiffs,
v.
HOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter came before the court on defendant Howell Public School District’s April 30, 2014
motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Shawn and Julie Motyka filed a response June 4, 2014; and Defendant
filed a reply June 19, 2014. Oral argument was heard June 19, 2014. For the reasons that follow,
the court will grant Defendant’s motion.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiffs Shawn and Julie Motyka are the parents of KM, who was a kindergartner at
Howell’s Hutchings Elementary School during the 2011-12 school year. Having been diagnosed
as having a Pervasive Developmental Disorder on the Autism Spectrum, KM was placed in a
classroom designated for emotionally impaired students. The student was the subject of an
Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) dated January 25, 2012, which called for KM to be taken
to the speech room when a behavior issue arose and to be given visual reminders.
During the morning of February 13, 2012, KM attempted to run from the classroom. KM’s
teacher and assistant physically picked up KM and put him into the classroom’s bathroom.

According to the teacher’s notes, she and an assistant then “[stood] guard” at the bathroom door for
approximately one hour, not allowing KM to leave the bathroom. The teacher’s notes also reference
a second incident on the same day when KM was secluded for a second time in the bathroom.
Plaintiffs and school officials met several times afterward. When the parties could not reach
an agreement whether to send KM back to the same elementary school, Plaintiffs enrolled KM in
the Hartland School District for the following school year. The federal claims remaining in this suit
are brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant has moved for dismissal, asserting that
Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The administrative exhaustion requirement is set forth in the IDEA. The Act conditions a
state’s receipt of federal funding upon the state’s development and implementation of policies and
procedures ensuring that “[a] free appropriate public education is available to all children with
disabilities.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). When a complaint arises related to an educational decision
or the IEP of a child in special education, the IDEA requires a parent to exhaust state administrative
remedies before proceeding to federal court. 20 U.S. § 1415(l); Crocker v. Tennessee Secondary
Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 873 F.2d 933, 935 (6th Cir. 1989).
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures,
and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting
the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action
under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the
procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same extent as
would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.
20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).

2

Subsection (f) provides for an “impartial due process hearing,” and subsection (g) provides
for an appeal to the state educational agency “[i]f the hearing required by subsection (f) of this
section is conducted by a local education agency.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(f) and (g)(1).
Merely filing a complaint in the state complaint process does not satisfy the exhaustion
requirement under the IDEA. Long v. Dawson Springs Indep. Sch. Dist., 197 Fed. Appx. 427 (6th
Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when
plaintiff appealed the relief afforded to her from the state complaint resolution process but she had
abandoned her due process hearing).
In this case Plaintiffs contend that they have exhausted their administrative remedies by filing
a complaint with the state and by receiving a favorable decision. However, Plaintiffs did not file
a due process complaint; and that due process complaint has not been heard by an administrative law
judge. Accordingly, they have not exhausted state administrative remedies as required by the IDEA.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Howell Public School District’s April 30, 2014 motion
to dismiss is GRANTED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: June 20, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
this date, June 20, 2014, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3