Crofts et al v. Issaquah School District et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying Defendants' 10 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(TH) (cc: Plaintiff Jeremy Sanders via U.S. Mail)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

LAYNA CROFTS and JEREMY SANDERS,

9

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. C17-1365RAJ

10
11
12

v.
ORDER
ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MELISSA MADSEN, and RON THIELE,
Defendants.

13
14
I.

15

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 10.

16
17

Plaintiffs oppose the Motion 1. Dkt. # 13, 20. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

18

DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 10.

19
II.

BACKGROUND

20
Plaintiffs Layna Crofts and Jeremy Sanders, proceeding pro se, seek judicial

21
22

review of the final order of an administrative law judge pursuant to the Individuals with

23

Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). Dkt. # 6. On October

24
25
26

1

27

Plaintiffs request oral argument in their Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #
20. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds that
oral argument is unnecessary

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4

19, 2017, Defendants Issaquah School District, Melissa Madsen, and Ron Thiele, filed a
Motion to Dismiss Melissa Madsen and Ron Thiele as defendants in this case. Dkt. # 10.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. FRCP 12(b)(6)

5
6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

7

claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual

8

allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v.

9

Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true conclusory

10
11

allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v.

12

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must

13

point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell

14

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint

15
16

avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the

17

complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

18

662, 679 (2009).

19

A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of the

20
21

complaint, although it may rely on a document to which the complaint refers if the

22

document is central to the party’s claims and its authenticity is not in question. Marder v.

23

Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider evidence subject to

24

judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4

IV.

DISCUSSION

Under the IDEA, states are offered federal funds to assist in education children
with disabilities. In order to receive federal financial assistance, the state must provide a
“free appropriate public education” (or “FAPE”) to “all children with disabilities residing

5
6

in the State.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). The responsibility of ensuring that disabled

7

children receive a FAPE under the IDEA lies with state education agencies. 20 U.S.C.

8

§ 1412(a)(11). A state education agency distributes the funds it receives to a local

9

education agency, and the local education agency is then responsible for providing

10
11

appropriate education and services to the disabled children. 20 U.S.C. § 1411(f)(2).

12

Defendants argue that Superintendent Ron Thiele and Executive Director of

13

Special Services Melissa Madsen, should be dismissed from this case because they

14

cannot be sued under the IDEA in their individual capacities, and that suing them in their

15
16

official capacities is duplicative of the claim asserted against Issaquah School District

17

(the “District”), because Mr. Thiele and Ms. Madsen are District employees. The Court

18

agrees with Defendants that to bring suit against Mr. Thiele and Ms. Madsen in their

19

official capacity would be duplicative because they are also bringing suit against the

20
21

District. See Stanek v. St. Charles Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 303, 783 F.3d 634, 644 (7th

22

Cir. 2015); Everett H. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary Sch. Dist., 5 F. Supp. 3d 1167, 1180

23

(E.D. Cal. 2014).

24

The Court does not, however, agree with Defendants’ assertion that Mr. Thiele

25
26

and Ms. Madsen cannot be sued under the IDEA in their individual capacities. Very few

27

courts have examined the issue of whether the IDEA provides for individual liability.

28

ORDER – 3

1

Defendants cite to only one decision in this district that held that individual defendants

2

may not be sued in their individual capacities under the IDEA. Blanchard v. Morton Sch.

3

Dist., No. CV 02-5101 FDB, 2006 WL 1075222, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 2006),

4

judgment corrected, No. CV 02-5101 FDB, 2006 WL 1419381 (W.D. Wash. May 19,

5
6

2006), and aff'd, 504 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2007), opinion amended and superseded, 509

7

F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2007), and aff'd, 509 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2007). The court in Blanchard

8

dismissed the relevant individual defendants in that case on the basis of ineffective

9

service of process, but commented that “an additional basis for dismissal of the complaint

10
11

against the individual defendants is that these defendants may not be sued in their

12

individual capacities under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act or the IDEA because these

13

statutes do not provide for individual liability.” Blanchard, 2006 WL 1075222, at *2.

14

While this decision was affirmed, the Ninth Circuit specifically affirmed dismissal of the

15
16

individual defendants on the basis of ineffective service of process, and stayed silent on

17

the district court’s statement regarding their individual liability. Blanchard v. Morton

18

Sch. Dist., 260 F. App'x 992, 993 (9th Cir. 2007)

19

Defendants do not cite to any binding legal authority that supports its assertion and

20
21

the Court has not found a decision from the Ninth Circuit or any other circuit that states

22

that school district employees cannot be held individually liable under the IDEA. See

23

Stanek v. St. Charles Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 303, 783 F.3d 634, 644 (7th Cir. 2015)

24

(“We have not found a decision from any circuit holding that individual school

25
26

employees cannot be personally liable for violating IDEA.”). Defendants offer no other

27
28

ORDER – 4

1
2
3
4

argument supporting their argument that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Mr.
Thiele and Ms. Madsen. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

5
6
7

Dkt. # 10.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2017.

8
9

11

A

12

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 5