Shores v. Hay, 1:21-cv-00455

Background

Plaintiffs Michelle and Dane Shores (and their minor son B.S.) sued Dr. Nikita Hay (individually and officially) and Dr. Kurt Humphrey (officially) alleging (1) violations of the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, §1983 due‑process claims under the U.S. and Hawai`i Constitutions, and (2) state‑law medical malpractice.
B.S. was placed at Capstone (a Michigan residential facility) during SY 2019–20 under an IEP; Capstone later requested B.S.’s discharge and he was returned to Hawai`i in Feb. 2020 under an ICPC transfer.
CAMHD (DOH) clinicians (Drs. Hay and Humphrey) participated in evaluations and IEP meetings and sought parental consent for alternate placements; parents did not consent or take custody when B.S. arrived in Hawai`i, so CAMHD contacted Child Welfare Services.
Plaintiffs previously filed and withdrew an IDEA due‑process complaint (dismissed with prejudice after settlement); they now assert federal constitutional and statutory claims against DOH employees and a state malpractice claim.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds (improper defendants, Eleventh Amendment, failure to exhaust IDEA remedies, qualified immunity, lack of malpractice expert). Plaintiffs filed a partial summary‑judgment motion as to liability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to strike Plaintiffs’ partial MSJ for failing to meet‑and‑confer under local rule	Shores: they complied with LR7.8	Hay/Humphrey: plaintiffs failed to meet and confer	Denied — dispute characterized as he‑said‑she‑said; court declines to strike motion
Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on IDEA/placement (20 U.S.C. §1415(j))	Plaintiffs: DOH/clinicians unilaterally changed B.S.’s placement in violation of §1415(j)	Defendants: no evidence IEP required Capstone; plaintiffs failed to exhaust IDEA remedies; withdrawal of prior administrative complaint	Plaintiffs’ MSJ denied — too vague, failure to show no genuine dispute and failure to exhaust administrative remedies
§1983 due‑process, Rehab Act, Hawai`i Constitution claims against DOH employees	Plaintiffs: Defs. deprived B.S. of FAPE and discriminated based on disability; seek damages and declaratory relief	Defendants: official‑capacity suits are against the State (Eleventh Amendment); Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply to states; no causation by Dr. Hay; §504 claims cannot be vindicated via individual‑capacity §1983 suits; lack of intent/deliberate indifference; IDEA controls/exhaustion required	Summary judgment for defendants on Count I: Fifth Amendment claims dismissed; Fourteenth Amendment official‑capacity claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; individual‑capacity Fourteenth claim against Hay fails for lack of causation; §504 and IDEA claims against DOH/DOH employees dismissed
State medical malpractice claim (supplemental jurisdiction)	Plaintiffs: malpractice/new‑theory of liability; assert common‑knowledge exception to expert requirement	Defendants: federal claims disposed; plaintiffs offered no malpractice expert; even under common‑knowledge exception, no evidence of negligence	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses federal claims; would likely dismiss malpractice on merits for lack of expert/common‑knowledge support

Key Cases Cited

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (official‑capacity suits treated as suits against the State)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (States and state officials in official capacity are not "persons" under §1983)
Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154 (IDEA exhaustion required when suit seeks relief also available under IDEA)
McIntyre v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 976 F.3d 902 (IDEA does not permit ordinary monetary damages)
Chaudhry v. Aragón, 68 F.4th 1161 (causation standards for §1983 liability)
Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169 (Fifth Amendment due‑process clause applies only to federal government)
Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (Section 504 rights cannot be vindicated via individual‑capacity §1983 suits against state officials)
Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090 (DOE retains ultimate responsibility to ensure FAPE even when multiple agencies are involved)
A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 815 F.3d 1195 (elements and deliberate‑indifference standard for §504 damages)
T.B. ex rel. Brenneise v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 806 F.3d 451 (intent/deliberate indifference required for §504 damages)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (sovereign‑immunity exception allowing prospective injunctive relief against state officers)
Craft v. Pebble, 893 P.2d 138 (78 Hawai‘i 287) (Hawaii rule on expert testimony and the rare common‑knowledge exception in malpractice cases)