Paul G. v. Monterey Peninsula U.S.D.
933 F.3d 1096
9th Cir.2019Background
- Paul G., an autistic student living in Monterey, California, required residential placement to receive appropriate special education; no in-state residential facility would accept him as an adult.
- Paul pursued IDEA administrative proceedings in August 2015 through the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), alleging denial of a FAPE and seeking in-state residential placement, damages, and systemic relief; OAH dismissed claims against the state for lack of jurisdiction.
- Paul settled with the school district before obtaining an OAH decision on whether an in-state placement was required by his IEP; OAH dismissed the case without ruling on that specific FAPE claim.
- In September 2016 Paul sued the California Department of Education under the ADA and § 504 seeking damages and an injunction for failure to provide in-state residential placements for adult students.
- The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l); the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding Paul’s claims were essentially IDEA claims (denial of a FAPE) and exhaustion was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s ADA/§504 suit must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies | Paul: suit alleges disability discrimination and systemic state practice; exhaustion not required because claim is not an IDEA denial of FAPE or fits Hoeft exceptions | CDE: claim seeks relief that would be available under the IDEA (an IEP requiring in-state placement); exhaustion required under §1415(l) | Court: Gravamen is denial of a FAPE; exhaustion required and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff’s claims fall within Fry v. Napoleon test (i.e., are they other than denial of a FAPE) | Paul: claim is broader discrimination about statewide lack of adult residential placements, not an ordinary IEP dispute | CDE: relief sought is fundamentally educational (access to particular school placement) and Paul previously used IDEA process, pointing to an IDEA claim | Court: Applying Fry, plaintiff’s relief is educational and analogous to IDEA relief; Fry supports exhaustion |
| Whether exhaustion exceptions (futility/systemic practice/authority limits) apply | Paul: OAH dismissed state for lack of authority to create facilities; exhaustion would be futile and systemic exception applies | CDE: plaintiff settled without obtaining a final administrative ruling on the specific FAPE claim; dismissal of state does not excuse administrative exhaustion against the district | Court: Exceptions do not apply—plaintiff failed to obtain final administrative decision via the district process and must exhaust |
| Whether plaintiff can obtain relief now in federal court after settlement without an OAH determination | Paul: seeks damages and injunction against state for systemic discrimination | CDE: absent an IEP or final administrative decision requiring in-state placement, relief is also available under IDEA and administrative remedies must be exhausted first | Court: Because no administrative decision established that an in-state placement was required, plaintiff cannot maintain the ADA/§504 suit; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1992) (identifies exhaustion exceptions: futility, systemic policy, and lack of authority)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (U.S. 2017) (test to decide whether suit’s gravamen is denial of a FAPE and thus requires IDEA exhaustion)
- Wellman v. Butler Area Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2017) (ADA/§504 claims dismissed where grievances stem from alleged failure to provide educational services covered by IDEA)
- Nelson v. Charles City Cmty. Sch. Dist., 900 F.3d 587 (8th Cir. 2018) (claims seeking relief directly tied to an IEP require exhaustion)
- Durbrow v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 887 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2018) (ADA/§504 claims alleging inadequacy of special education are IDEA claims requiring exhaustion)
- Doe ex rel. Brockhuis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Educ., 111 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1997) (systemic-exception standard: when claim requires restructuring education system or questions dispute-resolution integrity)
- Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasizes purpose of exhaustion to give agency opportunity to rule before court review)