United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Greene County Tech School District (the
“District”) filed this action pursuant to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(i)(3)(A),
(j), for injunctive relief to secure the maintenance of the
current educational placement of MW, a 19-year-old student at
Greene County Tech High School (Dkt. No. 1). Before the Court
is the District's motion to dismiss the appeal (Dkt. No.
26). Defendants MW, an adult, and Carla Wilson, mother of MW
(collectively “the Wilsons”), responded in
opposition to the motion, and the District filed a reply
(Dkt. Nos. 28, 30). The District moves to dismiss this action
for mootness and lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt.
No. 26, ¶ 1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
grants the District's motion to the extent it seeks to
dismiss any claim for attorney's fees under the IDEA, and
the Court denies the District's motion to the extent the
District seeks to dismiss the counterclaim and third-party
complaint in this action.
I.
Background
The
following facts come from the District's complaint,
unless otherwise noted (Dkt. No. 1). MW is a 19-year-old
student at Greene County Tech High School and was on course
to graduate in May 2017 (Id., ¶¶ 1, 5). MW
has cerebral palsy (Id., ¶ 5). She has limited
verbal ability, limited control of her muscular functions,
and is unable to feed herself (Id.). MW has an
individualized educational plan (“IEP”) and an
initialized healthcare plan (“IHP”)
(Id.). She takes general education classes with time
in special education (Id.).
The
District alleges that it was informed that MW had been the
subject of a swallow study done at Arkansas Children's
Hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas (Id., ¶ 6).
The study recommended that MW's primary care physician
(“PCP”) issue orders about what food and liquids
MW should be given and how they should be taken
(Id., ¶ 6). The District alleges that it
requested the PCP's orders from Ms. Wilson, but she
refused to provide the orders to the District (Id.,
¶ 7). The District further alleges that it requested
that Ms. Wilson sign a release so that the District could get
the orders, to deliver the orders to the District, or to
authorize the District's nurse to talk with the PCP and
receive the orders, but the District claims that Ms. Wilson
refused (Id.). The District asserts that it believed
it was unsafe for district personnel to feed MW without
receiving information from MW's PCP (Id., ¶
8).
On
January 9, 2017, Ms. Wilson, on behalf of MW, filed a special
education due process complaint against the District, which
was assigned Arkansas Department of Education
(“ADE”), Special Education Division No. H-17-20
(Id., ¶ 2). On February 3, 2017, the hearing
officer issued a stay-put order requiring that the District
allow MW to return to school during the pendency of the
special education due process case (Id., ¶ 9).
On March 13, 2017, the District brought this action against
the Wilsons seeking an injunction mandating Ms. Wilson
release medical information to the District to permit
MW's further attendance at school in compliance with the
stay-put order (Id., at 4-5). The District
specifically sought medical information from MW's PCP
regarding what foods and liquids MW should be given and how
those foods and liquids should be taken (Id., ¶
6). On March 30, 2017, the District filed a motion for
injunctive relief seeking a preliminary and final injunction
against the Wilsons (Dkt. No. 8). Specifically, the District
requested an injunction requiring Ms. Wilson to cease and
desist from blocking access of the District to MW's
medical information from her PCP, mandating that Ms. Wilson
take necessary steps to release the medical information to
the District, and permitting MW to attend school as required
by the stay-put order (Id., at 4).
On
April 2, 2017, the Wilsons filed a counterclaim against the
District and a third-party complaint against the District;
Gene Weeks, Superintendent and Chief Executive Officer of the
District; Chad Jordan, Principal of Greene County Tech High
School; and Tammy Birmingham, Director of Special Education
in the District (Dkt. No. 13). The Wilsons' counterclaim
and third-party complaint allege violations of procedural and
substantive due process and equal protection protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
for violation of stay-put under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j);
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 701
et seq.; and Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §
12131-12165, for unlawful discrimination based on disability
(Dkt. No. 13, at 16-29). These are all federal claims, giving
rise to federal jurisdiction in their own right. On April 4,
2017, the Wilsons filed a motion for preliminary injunction
(Dkt. No. 17). The Wilsons requested an injunction ordering
the District to allow MW to return to school, to implement
the services and supports on MW's IEP, and to allow
access to a private healthcare aide for MW (Id., at
9).
On
April 6, 2017, the Court held an evidentiary hearing where
the parties agreed to the following: (1) the District
withdrew its motion to dismiss without objection; (2) the
District agreed to follow the stay-put order entered by the
ADE hearing officer in No. H-17-20 (Dkt. No. 17-2); (3) the
parties agreed to reserve the issue of attorneys' fees
associated with their cross-motions for injunctive relief;
and (4) the parties agreed that the Court would retain
jurisdiction of the action (Dkt. No. 25, at 1). Based on the
parties' agreement, the Court denied as moot the then
pending cross-motions for injunctive relief on April 6, 2017
(Dkt. No. 24). In this Court's Order from May 4, 2017,
the Court acknowledged “that the parties have reserved
the issue of attorneys' fees associated with their
cross-motions for injunctive relief.” (Dkt. No. 25, at
1). In that Order, the Court retained jurisdiction
“over any disputes that should arise regarding the
terms or conditions of the stay-put order issued by the ADE
hearing officer.” (Id., at 2).
On
November 3, 2017, the hearing officer entered a Final
Decision and Order in the ADE, Special Education Unit No.
H-17-27 (Dkt. No. 26, Ex. 1). The hearing officer ordered the
following:
1. Upon receipt of this order, but no later than November 30,
2017, the Parent will provide the District with the necessary
documentation in order for Easter Seals to conduct an
adaptive communication evaluation and any assistive
technology evaluations they deem appropriate to assist the
Student in the classroom as well as in implementation of the
associated related services.
2. Upon receipt of this order the Parent will sign consent
for District personnel responsible for the health and safety
of the Student to receive directions on types of foods and
how best to assist with feeding as well [as] administer
prescribed medications for the Student.
3. Upon receipt of this order, but no later than November 30,
2017, the District will submit the CIRCUIT request for Easter
Seals to conduct the augmentative communication and assistive
technology evaluations as noted in number (1) above.
4. Upon receipt of this order, but no later than January 5,
2018, the District will conduct a facilitated IEP conference
to develop an IEP for the Student to complete classes
necessary for her to receive a high school diploma. The
Parent will not dictate which District personnel will be
present to assist in the development of the IEP.
5. Should the Parent fail to comply with item one (1) above
the District will still be obligated to conduct the
facilitated IEP conference as ordered in item three (3), and
develop an IEP based on the best information available as of
January 5, 2018.
(Id., at 55-56). Under the IDEA, a party aggrieved
by the findings and decision of the hearing officer has 90
days from the date of the decision to bring a civil action in
either federal district court or a state court of competent
jurisdiction. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). Neither the
District nor the Wilsons filed such an appeal.
II.
...