Brisco v. Brisco

Background

Sara Brisco, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Gerry Brisco and the Delano Public School System and Meeker and Wright Special Education Cooperation. The opinion refers to the two education entities collectively as the “District” because the complaint did not distinguish between them.

Sara Brisco alleged that she and Gerry Brisco share two children with special needs. The complaint raised concerns about Gerry Brisco’s parenting and about the District’s handling of the children’s educational needs, including staffing, access to technology, and communication with her.

Claims

The complaint alleged that Gerry Brisco and the District violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, by failing to adequately integrate the children into the school setting. It also asserted a “Next Friend Habeas Corpus” claim concerning alleged child endangerment under Minnesota law and a claim under Minnesota’s Child Abuse Reporting Act.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard, a complaint must include enough factual allegations to make liability a reasonable possibility, rather than relying on labels, conclusions, or speculation.

As to Gerry Brisco, the court held that the ADA provision at issue applies to public entities, and that he is not a public entity. The court therefore concluded that Sara Brisco could not state an ADA claim against him.

As to the District, the court found that the allegations about insufficient staffing, the child’s use of technology, and communication difficulties did not explain how the District violated the ADA. The court also found that the complaint did not explain how the District failed to provide services in an integrated setting. It dismissed the ADA claim as not plausibly alleged and declined to allow repleading because the complaint was insufficient and Sara Brisco had not suggested that additional supporting facts existed.

The ADA claim was the sole basis for federal-question jurisdiction. After dismissing it, the court considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over the remaining claims. The court declined to do so because the remaining claims depended only on state law, the case was at an early stage, and the court had not invested substantial resources in it.

Disposition

The court ordered that the motions to dismiss filed by Gerry Brisco and the District were granted. The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Count I and without prejudice as to Counts II and III.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, rather than deciding the underlying state-law questions.