Terri Simmons v. Nicole Murphy

Background

Terri Simmons, representing herself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued the Putnam/Northern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Services, the Mount Vernon City School District, and various officials. Her claims arose from the alleged suspension of her son, identified as “P.E.,” from Fox Middle School/High School; alleged restrictions on her participation in disciplinary hearings; and alleged failures to provide P.E. educational services or an appropriate school placement.

The court had previously dismissed Simmons’s initial complaint because she could not represent P.E. without a lawyer and had not been appointed as his guardian ad litem or representative for the case. The court later dismissed her amended complaint, including her claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court allowed her to file a second amended complaint asserting claims on her own behalf if she adequately alleged that she had completed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s administrative process or that completing it would have been futile or otherwise excused.

Simmons filed the second amended complaint on her own behalf. The record showed that she had requested an impartial due-process hearing, participated in a preliminary hearing conference, received information about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s procedural safeguards, and later signed a settlement agreement with the District instead of proceeding to the hearing. The settlement agreement withdrew her hearing request with prejudice as to claims against the District and waived claims concerning P.E.’s suspension and educational support for the 2016–2017 school year against the District, while reserving claims against PNW BOCES.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court addressed the jurisdictional issue first.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act generally requires a party to complete available administrative procedures before filing a civil action concerning a child’s right to a free appropriate public education. The court concluded that Simmons’s claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 were subject to that requirement because the central issue was the alleged denial of an appropriate education, rather than intentional discrimination or retaliation.

Simmons conceded that she had not exhausted the administrative procedures. She argued that the requirement should be excused because exhaustion would have been futile or because she had not received notice of her procedural rights. The court rejected both arguments. It found that her allegations did not plausibly show systemic violations or an unlawful policy of general application that the administrative process could not address. The court also found that the record contradicted her claim that she lacked notice: she knew about and used her right to request an impartial hearing, received the procedural-safeguards information, and chose to settle with the District rather than continue to the hearing.

The court therefore dismissed the claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies without an appropriate excuse. Because it determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the court expressly declined to decide whether those claims were adequately pleaded under Rule 12(b)(6).

State-Law Claims

Simmons also asserted claims under New York Education Law. After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. It dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Simmons requested permission to file another amended complaint. The court denied that request because it had already allowed her to amend twice, had identified the deficiencies in the earlier pleadings, and found that the second amended complaint did not correct them. The court concluded that the problem with the claims was substantive and that better pleading would not cure it.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and denied Simmons’s cross-motion for leave to amend. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Simmons permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.