From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hope v. Cortines

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 8, 1995
69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995)

Summary

holding that section 1415( l) of the IDEA is jurisdictional

Summary of this case from Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged

Opinion

No. 274, Docket 95-7151.

Argued: October 13, 1995.

Decided: November 8, 1995.

Loren Baily, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jane L. Gordon, New York, N.Y. (Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Barry P. Schwartz, New York, N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiffs-appellants Moyo Hope, a sixteen year-old minor, and his parents appeal from the January 9, 1995, judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, Judge) dismissing their lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §(s) 12101 et. seq. (Supp. V 1993), against the Board of Education of the City of New York and its Chancellor. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants unlawfully discriminated on the basis of disability and race by refusing to provide appropriate educational services to Moyo, a child who is both gifted and afflicted with dyslexia. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' ADA claim, as well as other claims not pursued on appeal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §(s) 1400 et. seq. (Supp. V 1993). Plaintiffs ask this Court to vacate the dismissal of the ADA claim and return the case to the District Court.

In a thorough, thoughtful opinion, the District Court explained why claims asserted under the ADA are subject to the IDEA's requirement, 20 U.S.C. §(s) 1415(f), that litigants exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures before bringing suit under the ADA to obtain relief that is available under the IDEA. Hope v. Cortines, 872 F. Supp. 14, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). The District Court also determined that the relief plaintiffs seek is available under the IDEA, and that plaintiffs' claims do not fall within any of the exceptions to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Id. at 21-23. We affirm on the opinion of the District Court.


Summaries of

Hope v. Cortines

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 8, 1995
69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995)

holding that section 1415( l) of the IDEA is jurisdictional

Summary of this case from Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged

holding that exhaustion is required as to ADA claims

Summary of this case from In re Jeremy H

holding that ADA, § 1983 and § 2000d claims related to the education of a disabled student are subject to IDEA's exhaustion requirement

Summary of this case from Filaski v. NORTHPORT-E. Northport Union Free S. Dist

holding that ADA, Section 1983 and Section 2000d claims are subject to IDEA's exhaustion requirement

Summary of this case from Kalliope R. v. New York State Dep't of Educ.

holding that ADA, Section 1983 and Section 2000d claims are subject to IDEA's exhaustion requirement

Summary of this case from Rafano v. Patchogue-Medford School District

holding that ADA, § 1983 and § 2000d claims are subject to IDEA's exhaustion requirement

Summary of this case from Levine v. Greece Central School District

holding that ADA, Section 1983 and Section 2000d claims are subject to IDEA's exhaustion requirement

Summary of this case from Gardner v. Uniondale Public School District

holding that ADA, Section 1983 and Section 2000d claims are subject to IDEA's exhaustion requirement

Summary of this case from Scaggs v. New York State Department of Education

finding claims asserted under the ADA subject to the IDEA'S exhaustion requirement, if such claims seek relief available under the IDEA

Summary of this case from A.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ.

adopting district court's opinion in its entirety, including determination that Congress intended Section 1983 claims to be subject to 1415(f)'s (now 1415(l)'s) requirements

Summary of this case from "BD" v. DeBuono

adopting lower court ruling, 872 F. Supp. 14, 19-22 (E.D.N Y 1995)

Summary of this case from Shaft v. Bullitt County Board of Education

affirming district court dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Weber v. Cranston Public School Committee

In Hope, we affirmed a district court's dismissal of a dyslexic student's disability and race discrimination claims under the ADA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative review procedures available under the IDEA. Hope, 69 F.3d at 688.

Summary of this case from Cave v. East Meadow

In Hope, we affirmed the dismissal of all of plaintiffs' claims, including their § 1983 cause of action, for want of subject matter jurisdiction due to non-exhaustion.

Summary of this case from Cave v. East Meadow

stating that litigants must "exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures before bringing suit under the ADA to obtain relief that is available under the IDEA."

Summary of this case from McAdams v. the Bd. of Educ. of the Rocky Point Sch. Dist.
Case details for

Hope v. Cortines

Case Details

Full title:LLOYD HOPE AND CONSTANCE FENNELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND LAWFUL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 8, 1995

Citations

69 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 1995)

Citing Cases

Cave v. East Meadow Union Free School Dist

Every "individualized education plan" ("IEP") is to be developed with the participation of parents and…

Polera v. Board of Educ. of Newburgh

A plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter…