Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Cheryl Blanchard, her husband Jerry, and their son appealed the district court's dismissal of their claims against the Morton School District and several school officials. The appellate court partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's decision. Cheryl Blanchard was deemed a proper party to the appeal, but could not represent her husband due to her non-attorney status. The minor son's status as a party was deemed unnecessary to determine. The court found proper service only for the District and John Flaherty, dismissing claims against Josh Brooks and Dave Crayk for lack of service. The court upheld the dismissal of claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, noting no damages claim under § 1983 for IDEA violations, which invalidated the § 1985 conspiracy claim. Cheryl Blanchard was allowed to pursue claims under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA and her petition for IDEA review was not time-barred. The appeal costs were assigned to each party individually. The disposition is not precedent-setting, and a pending petition for certiorari could affect the claims under § 1983 for IDEA violations.
Legal Issues Addressed
Claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dismissal of claims under these statutes was affirmed because there is no claim for damages under § 1983 for IDEA violations, and a valid § 1983 claim is necessary for a § 1985 conspiracy claim.
Reasoning: The court also affirms the dismissal of claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, citing that there can be no claim for damages under § 1983 for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and a conspiracy claim under § 1985 requires a valid § 1983 claim.
Claims under ADA and Rehabilitation Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Cheryl Blanchard is allowed to pursue claims under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA for asserting her son's rights and related expenses.
Reasoning: Cheryl Blanchard is permitted to seek relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act for asserting her son's rights and incurring related expenses.
Cost Responsibility in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Each party is responsible for its own costs on appeal.
Reasoning: Each party is responsible for its own appeal costs.
Proper Service of Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Only defendants properly served, the District and John Flaherty, were subject to the lawsuit, leading to the dismissal of claims against improperly served defendants.
Reasoning: Only the District and John Flaherty were properly served, with Flaherty adequately notified of the complaint, leading to the proper dismissal of defendants Josh Brooks and Dave Crayk.
Review of IDEA Administrative Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Cheryl Blanchard's petition for review of the IDEA administrative decision is timely, and she has standing to file a pro se review.
Reasoning: Furthermore, her petition for review of the IDEA administrative decision is not time-barred, and she has standing to file a pro se review.
Standing and Representation in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Cheryl Blanchard is confirmed as a proper party to the appeal, but she cannot represent her husband Jerry Blanchard due to her non-attorney status.
Reasoning: Cheryl Blanchard is confirmed as a proper party to the appeal, while Jerry Blanchard cannot be represented by her due to her non-attorney status.