60 F. Supp. 3d 601
D. Maryland2014Background
- Reid, a disabled student, sues the Board and three employees for civil rights and state tort claims stemming from a March 1, 2011 bus incident.
- Reid alleges defendants knew of her disabilities and failed to protect her on transportation to school.
- She asserts §1983, ADA, §504, and Maryland Article 24 claims, plus negligence and supervisory liability.
- Defendants move to dismiss, arguing time-bar, failure to exhaust remedies, and lack of capacity to sue.
- Court denies dismissal on all grounds and plans to address capacity via guardian ad litem at a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reid’s claims are time-barred by statute of limitations | Reid’s filing was timely | Claims were filed after the three-year period | Not time-barred; filing timely |
| Whether Reid must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies | IDEA exhaustion not required for non-educational damages | Exhaustion required; remedies could address transportation | Exhaustion not required; futile under facts |
| Whether Reid has capacity to sue and requires a guardian ad litem | Reid can pursue suit with appropriate representation | Potential lack of capacity requires guardian | Denied dismissal; Court to determine guardian ad litem at hearing |
| How to treat the exhaustion issue and capacity under Rule 12(b)(6) vs 12(b)(1) | Rule 12(b)(6) standard applies; exhaustion analyzed as pleadings | Exhaustion and capacity challenges affect jurisdiction/claim | Rule 12(b)(6) standard governs; dismissal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla ex rel. Padilla v. School Dist. No. 1 in City and Cnty. of Denver, 233 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2000) (IDEA exhaustion may be futile for non-educational damages)
- Polera v. Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion required when remedies address educational issues; otherwise not necessary in some cases)
- Witte v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 1999) (exhaustion futile for monetary damages for physical injuries)
- McCormick v. Waukegan School Dist. No. 60, 374 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2004) (IDEA exhaustion not required when damages for injury are non-educational)
- MM ex rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion futility doctrine applicable to IDEA in certain cases)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 300 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion analysis varies by context; not all claims trigger IDEA exhaustion)
- Kivanc v. United States, 714 F.3d 782 (4th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes jurisdictional vs. merits challenges; statute of limitations is a claim-ground issue)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (stated rules about pleading and limitations as non-jurisdictional)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (limits on deciding jurisdictional vs. non-jurisdictional issues)
- Davis v. N.C. Dep’t of Correction, 48 F.3d 134 (4th Cir. 1995) (right-to-sue letter as potential jurisdictional requirement in some contexts)
- Covington v. Knox County Sch. Sys., 205 F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion applicable where educational remedies are implicated)
- Charlie F. v. Bd. of Educ. of Skokie Sch. Dist. 68, 98 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 1996) (educational-source claims may require exhaustion where remedies exist)