Valentin-Marrero v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 20-2054P

Background

GAJVM, a DOE-registered student with disabilities, attended CADEI (privately funded placement) in 2016–2018 after an administrative complaint produced a February 12, 2018 administrative order requiring the parties to convene Programming and Placement Committee (COMPU) meetings to draft IEPs for 2017–2018 and 2018–2019.
COMPU approved the 2017–2018 IEP (which required ABA services); for 2018–2019 DOE proposed a different school-based IEP without full-time ABA and the parents rejected it.
The parents did not seek a due-process administrative hearing over the 2018–2019 IEP; instead they filed suit in federal court on May 11, 2018 seeking injunctive relief (an ABA-designed IEP), reimbursement, and fees.
The district court held a preliminary-injunction hearing, ordered an ABA-designed IEP, denied DOE motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and later entered mixed summary-judgment rulings finding an IDEA violation for part of the period and awarding some relief.
DOE continuously argued lack of exhaustion; on appeal the First Circuit vacated the district-court judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parents were required to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before suing over the 2018–2019 IEP	Parents: No exhaustion needed because they sought to enforce the prior administrative order and the DOE failed to implement it	DOE: Plaintiffs failed to exhaust and thus the court lacked jurisdiction or must dismiss	Held: Plaintiffs failed to exhaust; dismissal required — the administrative order did not resolve 2018–2019 IEP merits so suit was not merely enforcement of an existing adjudication
Whether Nieves‑Márquez enforcement exception applied (suit to enforce an ALJ order without returning to admin process)	Parents: Nieves‑Márquez permits suit to enforce a prior favorable administrative decision when DOE fails to comply	DOE: Nieves‑Márquez inapplicable because no prior administrative determination found specific services necessary for 2018–2019	Held: Nieves‑Márquez does not apply — the February 2018 order only mandated meetings to draft IEPs, not a substantive ruling that ABA was required for 2018–2019
Whether the exhaustion requirement’s jurisdictional status affects outcome	Parents: (implied) district court could adjudicate due to enforcement posture; did not press jurisdictional technicalities	DOE: Exhaustion is a prerequisite — raised continually below and on appeal	Held: Court did not resolve the jurisdictional-versus-claims‑processing split but found dismissal appropriate because DOE properly preserved the exhaustion defense and exhaustion was not satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Nieves‑Márquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2003) (recognizing exception allowing suit to enforce a prior administrative order when the agency fails to implement required services)
D.E. v. Central Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2014) (discussed by district court on enforcement/exhaustion issues)
Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (IDEA exhaustion required when gravamen of complaint seeks redress for failure to provide a FAPE)
Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress given the child’s circumstances)
Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2002) (explaining the special benefits of IDEA administrative process and importance of exhaustion)
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (courts should not substitute their educational policy judgments for those of school authorities)