Carrie-Anne Smith v. Rockwood R-VI School District , 895 F.3d 566 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-2260
    ___________________________
    Carrie-Anne Smith, In her individual capacity; G.S., Next friend Carrie-Anne Smith
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
    v.
    Rockwood R-VI School District; Eric Knost
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: April 11, 2018
    Filed: July 11, 2018
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
    Carrie-Anne Smith, acting in her individual capacity, and G.S., her son, with
    Smith acting as next friend, appeal the district court’s1 dismissal of their complaint,
    which alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.
    1
    The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri, now retired.
    § 1400 et seq. (the IDEA); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
    29 U.S.C. § 794
     et seq.;
    and 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    . We affirm.
    G.S. was a student at Marquette High School (Marquette) located in
    Chesterfield, Missouri, during the 2014-15 school year. Although Marquette is in the
    Rockwood R-VI School District (Rockwood), the Special School District of St. Louis
    County (St. Louis District) administers G.S.’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP),
    which addresses his medical and educational needs.2 On September 30, 2014, the
    assistant principal at Marquette suspended G.S. from school for ten days. Shortly
    thereafter, Rockwood and the St. Louis District held a manifestation hearing with
    G.S.’s IEP team as required by the IDEA and concluded that G.S. was suspended for
    conduct that manifested from his disability. Under the IDEA, G.S. needed to be
    readmitted into school or have his placement changed based on a modification of his
    behavior intervention plan. Two days after the manifestation hearing, however,
    Superintendent Eric Knost informed Smith by letter that Rockwood was suspending
    G.S. for “an additional 180 days of out-of-school suspension.”
    After learning in May 2015 that G.S.’s suspension should have ended after the
    manifestation hearing, Smith and G.S. filed a due process complaint with the
    Administrative Hearing Commission against the St. Louis District. The parties
    privately resolved the case, and Smith and G.S. voluntarily dismissed the due process
    complaint.
    Plaintiffs thereafter filed suit in federal district court. The court dismissed the
    complaint because plaintiffs had not properly exhausted their administrative remedies
    under the IDEA. We review the district court’s ruling de novo. J.M. v. Francis
    2
    G.S. has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Tourette Syndrome,
    Emotional Disturbance, Major Depression, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and
    Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
    -2-
    Howell Sch. Dist., 
    850 F.3d 944
    , 947 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing J.B. ex rel. Bailey v.
    Avilla R-XIII Sch. Dist., 
    721 F.3d 588
    , 592 (8th Cir. 2013)).
    The purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have
    available to them a free appropriate public education . . . designed to meet their
    unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent
    living[.]” 
    20 U.S.C. § 1400
    (d)(1)(A). The statute requires state educational agencies
    to “establish and maintain procedures . . . to ensure that children with disabilities and
    their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a
    free appropriate public education[.]” 
    20 U.S.C. § 1415
    (a). Although the IDEA
    allows parents to bring disability discrimination claims on behalf of their child, they
    must first exhaust their administrative remedies if they are “seeking relief that is also
    available under [the IDEA].” 
    20 U.S.C. § 1415
    (l). The Supreme Court has explained
    that the exhaustion requirement applies only if plaintiffs are seeking relief for the
    denial of a free appropriate public education.3 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 
    137 S. Ct. 743
    , 752 (2017). Exhaustion is not required if plaintiffs are “seek[ing] relief for
    simple discrimination[.]” 
    Id. at 756
    . To determine whether a complaint seeks redress
    for the denial of a public education, the courts “look to the substance, or gravamen,
    of the plaintiff’s complaint.” 
    Id. at 752
    .
    Plaintiffs argue that the Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims in their district
    court complaint allege disability discrimination, not the denial of a public education.
    We disagree. The district court complaint states that “[a]s a direct and proximate
    result of the long-term suspension, G.S. was excluded from and deprived of
    educational benefits” and that “G.S. was excluded from participating in, and was
    denied the benefits of, the program of education at [Marquette][.]” Although
    plaintiffs allege “disability discrimination” in other sections of the complaint, the
    gravamen of the complaint is the denial of a public education.
    3
    We will refer to a free appropriate public education as “public education.”
    -3-
    Our characterization of the complaint is also consistent with the procedural
    history of the case. The Supreme Court explained in Fry that a “prior pursuit of the
    IDEA’s administrative remedies will often provide strong evidence that the substance
    of a plaintiff’s claim concerns the denial of a [public education], even if the complaint
    never explicitly uses that term.” 
    137 S. Ct. at 757
    . Plaintiffs acknowledge that the
    prior due process complaint filed with the Administrative Hearing Commission
    alleged the denial of a public education. See Appellant’s Br. 16 (“In the [due process
    complaint], G.S. and [the St. Louis District] resolved the prospective issue of
    providing a [public education] to G.S. going forward.”). This acknowledgment of the
    underlying purpose of the litigation leads to the determination that the Rehabilitation
    Act and § 1983 claims concern the denial of a public education, the ultimate relief for
    which required plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies. In light of
    plaintiffs’ failure to do so, the Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims must be
    dismissed.
    The complaint also alleges violations of the IDEA. Plaintiffs argue that the
    exhaustion requirement does not apply to these claims because plaintiffs sought
    money damages—a remedy not authorized by the IDEA. Although the Supreme
    Court declined to address this issue in Fry, our precedent is clear “that ‘the IDEA’s
    exhaustion requirement remains the general rule, regardless of whether the
    administrative process offers the particular type of relief that is being sought.’” J.M.,
    850 F.3d at 950 (quoting J.B., 721 F.3d at 595). Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that
    if exhaustion is required, an unenumerated exception to the exhaustion requirement
    should apply because plaintiffs seek relief unavailable under the IDEA, an argument
    that we rejected in J.M. Id. at 950-51.
    Plaintiffs further argue that an exception should apply to the exhaustion
    requirement because Rockwood was not a proper party to the due process complaint
    and would have been summarily dismissed from any administrative proceedings. In
    -4-
    support of this argument, plaintiffs cite Missouri Revised Statute § 162.890, which
    states in relevant part that “neither the state board of education nor any school district
    within the special district shall be required to establish schools or classes for the
    training or education of handicapped or severely handicapped children under any
    other existing law[.]” Plaintiffs do not explain why this statute would prohibit
    Rockwood from participating in administrative proceedings in light of its alleged
    denial of a public education stemming from its expulsion decision. A hearing held
    under either the IDEA or the due process procedures outlined in Goss v. Lopez, 
    419 U.S. 565
     (1975)—even if resulting in Rockwood’s dismissal—would nevertheless
    have provided the benefit of the administrative agency’s expertise, as well a record
    for judicial review. See J.M., 850 F.3d at 951. Under these facts, we decline to create
    an exception to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2260

Citation Numbers: 895 F.3d 566

Filed Date: 7/11/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023