792 F.3d 1284
11th Cir.2015Background
- T.P., a student with autism and speech/language disabilities, received an initial special-education evaluation from Bryan County School District in Aug–Sept 2010 and an IEP was adopted; the parents did not object at that time or at annual reviews in 2011 and 2012.
- In Nov 2012 the parents requested a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE), claiming the 2010 evaluation was deficient; the District refused, asserting the IDEA two‑year limitations period and that the parents had not timely objected to the 2010 evaluation.
- The District offered to perform a reevaluation (not due until 2013 unless warranted sooner); the parents refused to consent and insisted on an IEE at public expense.
- Both parties filed due-process requests before a state ALJ. The ALJ ruled the parents’ IEE request was time‑barred by the IDEA’s two‑year limitation and ordered the parents to consent to the District’s reevaluation; he also held the District need not consider any privately obtained IEE until after its reevaluation.
- The parents sued in federal district court seeking reversal; the district court dismissed their complaint as time‑barred. The parents appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal moot because an order compelling a public‑funded IEE tied to the 2010 evaluation would no longer redress the parents’ procedural injury given that a reevaluation was due; it vacated the district court judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents’ Nov 2012 request for a publicly funded IEE was barred by IDEA’s 2‑year limitations period | Parents: request was timely or district’s delay precluded invoking the limitations period; they are entitled to an IEE | District: request made >2 years after 2010 evaluation, so time‑barred under IDEA/state rule | Court did not decide on the merits — appeal found moot; district court judgment vacated and case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether district had to fund an IEE before conducting its own reevaluation | Parents: District must pay for IEE because they disagreed with the 2010 evaluation | District: may conduct reevaluation first and parents may seek IEE afterward if they then disagree | Mootness: ordering IEE now would be futile because reevaluation is due; court did not reach merits |
| Whether ALJ properly ordered parents to consent to reevaluation and permitted District to ignore privately obtained IEE until after reevaluation | Parents: ALJ erred in compelling consent and limiting consideration of private IEE | District: ALJ properly allowed reevaluation and to defer consideration of private IEE until after reevaluation | Parents abandoned these arguments on appeal; court did not decide them |
| Whether federal district court erred in dismissing Parents’ complaint as time‑barred | Parents: district court wrongly treated statute‑of‑limitations issue as dispositive of entire complaint | District: dismissal proper because ALJ correctly found request time‑barred | Parents abandoned this argument on appeal; appellate court found entire appeal moot and vacated district court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (parents bear burden to show IEP inappropriate)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (two‑part IDEA inquiry: procedures and substantive educational benefit)
- M.T.V. v. DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153 (school cannot be forced to rely solely on privately obtained independent evaluation)
- Phillip C. ex rel. A.C. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 701 F.3d 691 (IEE right supplies parents independent expertise for IEP participation)
- M.M. ex rel. C.M. v. Sch. Bd., 437 F.3d 1085 (IDEA authorizes federal action to challenge ALJ decisions)
- BankWest, Inc. v. Baker, 446 F.3d 1358 (Article III mootness principles apply at all stages)
- G.J. v. Muscogee Cnty. Sch. Dist., 668 F.3d 1258 (procedural IDEA defects actionable only if they impede FAPE, parental participation, or cause loss of educational benefits)