J.M. v. Francis Howell School District, No. 16-1756 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, on behalf of her minor son J.M., filed suit against the School District, alleging unlawful use of isolation and physical restraints, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), RSMo 213.010 et seq. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claim. In this case, plaintiff did not file an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., due process complaint, request a due process hearing, or engage in the exhaustion procedures under the IDEA. The court concluded that because the complaint sought relief available under the IDEA, denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), the claims were subject to exhaustion, barring an applicable exception. The court rejected plaintiff's futility and inadequate remedy arguments and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. In action alleging the school district physically restrained and isolated J.M., thereby committing various Missouri state torts, as well as violations of the IDEA, Section 1983, the ADA, and the Missouri Human Rights Act, plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; plaintiffs' claims that they are excused from exhausting their administrative remedies under the "futility" and "inadequate remedy" exceptions rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.