M.P.G. v. Antioch Unified School District

Background

M.P.G., a minor proceeding through his guardian ad litem, Teresa Guzman, alleged that he has disabilities, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and received special education services from the Antioch Unified School District. He alleged that another student sexually assaulted him in a school bathroom on two occasions after his guardian notified school personnel about an earlier incident and asked the school to prevent the students from being alone together.

M.P.G. alleged that District employees knew the other student was subject to a restriction requiring supervised restroom use but failed to enforce it. He also alleged that the District failed to investigate reported harassment and failed to supervise students. His amended complaint asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, California Education Code section 220, and negligence.

The District previously obtained dismissal of the non-negligence claims, with permission to amend. M.P.G. then filed a first amended complaint that added allegations about his special education classroom, the other student’s restroom restriction, disability-related bullying risks, and concerns his guardian had emailed to the school principal. The District again moved to dismiss all claims except negligence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s Analysis

For the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, the court explained that M.P.G. needed to allege facts showing that he was denied services or benefits, or otherwise discriminated against, because of his disability. Because he sought money damages, he also needed to plausibly allege intentional discrimination through “deliberate indifference.” The court defined deliberate indifference as knowledge that harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely, followed by a failure to act on that likelihood.

The court found that the new allegations did not show that District personnel failed to investigate or supervise because of M.P.G.’s disability. The allegations about the restroom supervision restriction could have affected any student who was alone with the other student, not just M.P.G. The allegations that students with disabilities face increased bullying risks and that M.P.G. was placed in a combined special education classroom also did not establish discriminatory intent. The court further found that removing the word “negligently” from the amended complaint did not add facts showing the culpable mental state required for deliberate indifference; the amended complaint instead relied on conclusory statements.

For the California Education Code section 220 claim, the court stated that M.P.G. had to allege severe and pervasive disability-based harassment, the District’s actual knowledge of that harassment, and deliberate indifference. Applying its reasoning on the federal disability claims, the court found that M.P.G. had not shown that the harassment occurred because of his disability.

Disposition

The court granted the District’s motion to dismiss the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California Education Code section 220. It allowed M.P.G. a final opportunity to file a second amended complaint by September 26, 2023. The order did not dismiss the negligence claim.

The conclusion states that the court granted the motion to dismiss M.P.G.’s “first, third, and fourth causes of action,” although the opinion’s discussion and final-amendment language identify the dismissed claims as the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and section 220 claims. The order does not state that the dismissed claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.