Doe v. Dublin City School District

13 Citing cases

  1. C.P. v. Tenn. Dep't of Educ.

    Case No. 3:16-cv-02938 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    A claim brought under the IDEA may be dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to exhaust the act's administrative remedies, Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 F. App'x 606, 609 n.1 (6th Cir. 2011), but only if the failure to exhaust "appears on the face" of the complaint. Retamar-Lopez v. Bd. of Educ. of Dublin City Sch. Dist., No. 2:13-CV-0161, 2014 WL 221944, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2014) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)).

  2. E.G. v. Anchorage Indep. Pub. Sch.

    CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00804-TBR (W.D. Ky. Oct. 10, 2017)

    In sum, the ECAB, recognizing the importance and mandatory nature of the administrative process, remanded for further proceedings between Anchorage and E.G.'s parents. By bringing suit before finishing the administrative process on remand, Plaintiff's suit in this Court is premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 F. App'x 606, 609-10 (6th Cir. 2011) (emphasizing the requirement that a plaintiff "fully invoke the administrative process."). 2.

  3. J.R. v. Cox-Cruey

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-149-DLB-JGW (E.D. Ky. Jul. 6, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, it allows the "issues to be thoroughly vetted, and hopefully resolved, without court intervention." Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 F. App'x 606, 608 (6th Cir. 2011). Subsections (f) and (g) provide for a due process hearing and appeal at the state agency level.

  4. Retamar-Lopez v. Bd. of Educ. of the Dublin City Sch. Dist.

    Case No. 2:13-cv-0161 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    A court may, however, grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the basis of an affirmative defense if the defense appears on the face of the complaint. Id. at 215 (quoting Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001)); see also Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d 516, 520 (6th Cir. 2008) (analyzing a statute of limitations affirmative defense and drawing all "reasonable inferences" from the allegations in the complaint); Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., No. 2:09-cv-738, 2010 WL 1434318, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2010) (granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss an IDEA claim when the plaintiffs conceded that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies), aff'd, 453 F. App'x 606 (6th Cir. 2011). As such, the Court will not grant Defendants' motion unless Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust appears on the face of the Amended Complaint.

  5. Cindy Li v. Revere Local Sch. Dist.

    No. 21-3422 (6th Cir. May. 8, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    In light of [Union Pacific], we have lately broken with our own precedent and implied that the IDEA's exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional in nature. Compare Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 Fed.Appx. 606, 609 (6th Cir. 2011) (observing with approval a school district's decision to "rais[e] the [parents'] failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense"), with Metro. Bd. of Pub. Educ. v. Guest, 193 F.3d 457, 463 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent that it . . . rule[d] upon issues beyond those presented to the ALJ"). 655 Fed.

  6. Gibson ex rel. Gibson v. Forest Hills Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

    Case No. 14-3575 (6th Cir. Jul. 15, 2016)   Cited 23 times
    Acknowledging past Circuit implication that IDEA's exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but not conclusively deciding the issue

    In light of this authority, we have lately broken with our own precedent and implied that the IDEA's exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional in nature. Compare Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 F. App'x 606, 609 (6th Cir. 2011) (observing with approval a school district's decision to "rais[e] the [parents'] failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense"), with Metro. Bd. of Pub. Educ. v. Guest, 193 F.3d 457, 463 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent that it . . . rule[d] upon issues beyond those presented to the ALJ"). Other circuits have divided on the question.

  7. D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Sch.

    NO. 3:19-cv-00213 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 3, 2019)

    After an aggrieved party has exhausted the state's administrative procedures under the Act, he may bring a civil suit in federal district court to enforce his IDEA rights. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2), (1). "Properly following the administrative process allows issues to be thoroughly vetted, and hopefully resolved, without court intervention." Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 Fed. Appx. 606, 608-09 (6th Cir. 2011). The courts have recognized an exception to the exhaustion requirement, however, if exhaustion would be futile or inadequate to protect the plaintiff's rights.

  8. P.G. v. Rutherford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

    313 F. Supp. 3d 891 (M.D. Tenn. 2018)   Cited 21 times
    Holding the plaintiff's allegations concerning the defendant's failure to properly train instructors on how to handle challenging students with behavioral problems were subject to exhaustion under the IDEA

    265 F.Supp.3d at 772. CompareDoe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 Fed.Appx. 606, 609 (6th Cir. 2011) (observing with approval a school district's decision to "rais[e] the [parents'] failure to exhaust administrative remedies as an affirmative defense"), withMetro. Bd. of Pub. Educ. v. Guest, 193 F.3d 457, 463 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent that it...rule[d] upon issues beyond those presented to the ALJ").

  9. J.D. v. Graham Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

    Case No. 3:17-cv-143 (S.D. Ohio May. 5, 2017)

    Plaintiffs' true concern is the timing of that relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, due to the residency dispute between the parties, J.D. may be discharged from Pressley Ridge before the Impartial Hearing Officer enters a decision regarding his entitlement to stay there. In this regard, the Court is guided by Doe v. Dublin City School District, 453 Fed. App'x 606 (6th Cir. 2011), another case in which the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit under the IDEA for failure to exhaust administrative procedures. In Dublin City, the parents of a special needs student were frustrated by the school district's response to their request for the development of an IEP. Despite a psychiatric evaluation that diagnosed the student with serious disorders, the school district initially concluded that the student was not disabled and did not require an IEP. The school district later agreed that an IEP would be appropriate, but was slow to proceed with its development and implementation.

  10. Sims v. Bd. of Educ. of Winton Woods Sch. Dist.

    Case No. 1:16-CV-281 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    At least one unreported case in the Sixth Circuit assumed that failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies is an affirmative defense. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Dublin City Sch. Dist., 453 Fed. Appx. 606, 608 (6th Cir. 2011). Since, however, failure to exhaust administrative remedies is generally an affirmative defense, Hoogerheide v. I.R.S., 637 F.3d 634, 638 (6th Cir. 2011), the Court will assume for present purposes that Defendants bear the burden to show that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.