United States District Court, D. Colorado
C.W., a minor, by and through his parents B.W. and C.B., Plaintiff,
DENVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
S. Krieger Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss (# 25), the
Plaintiff's Response (# 30), and the
Defendant's Reply (# 34). For the
following reasons, the Motion is denied.
Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision
of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts under 20
U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).
purposes of this motion, the material factual allegations can
be briefly summarized.Plaintiff C.W. is
a minor child enrolled in the Defendant Denver County School
District (the District). He has tested as a highly gifted and
talented student, but suffers from a number of disabilities,
including an autism spectrum disorder, obsessive compulsive
disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, Ehlers-Danlos
Syndrom, Tourette's disorder, an eating disorder and
encopresis, and a sleep disorder entitling him to special
education and related services.
conformance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA),  a team comprised of C.W.'s parents and
District personnel assessed C.W.'s needs. Due to the
severity and complexity of his disabilities, they determined
that the least restrictive environment for his public
education was at his home. As a consequence, his 10/24/12
Individual Educational Plan (IEP) recommended educational
placement at his home.
the 2012-2013 academic year, the District has not provided
instruction in core academic subjects (language arts,
mathematics, science, history, civics and government,
geography, economics, art and foreign language) nor in social
sciences, technology, library and information, visual arts,
theater, music, technology and physical education, or
instruction appropriate to a highly gifted and talented
student. The services that were provided were neither
appropriate nor sufficient, and they were not delivered by
providers with adequate training/experience to meet
C.W.'s needs. In 2016, C.W.'s parents brought a
due-process complaint against the District based on these
2017, over his parents' objection, the District changed
C.W.'s designated placement from his home to a
consideration of C.W.'s parents' complaint and
evidence presented at a hearing, an administrative law judge
held that the District had violated the IDEA during the
2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 academic years, and
awarded unspecified compensatory damages. But the ALJ found
that the 2017 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide C.W.
with a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
parents now bring several claims. In its first claim for
relief, the Amended Complaint seeks review and reversal of
the ALJ's determination pursuant to 20 U.S.C.
§1415(C). Because C.W.'s parents prevailed on claims
pertinent to school years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and
2016-2017, the Court understands that this challenge is
limited to the one adverse ruling made by the ALJ - that the
2017 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide C.W. with a
FAPE. The second claim contends that the District's past
and present actions violate § 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. The third claim contends that the District's
past and present actions violate Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The fourth claim contends that the
District's actions (not circumscribed by time or
otherwise described) violate the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
District requests dismissal of the Fourth Claim for relief
for failure to state a claim. (# 25).
reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view
those allegations in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards &
Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1149 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind,
173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999)). The Court must limit
its consideration to the four corners of the complaint, any
exhibits attached thereto, and any external documents that
are incorporated by reference. See Smith v. United
States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). However, a
court may consider documents referred to in the complaint ...