Shuttered California school must face claims over child's death

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A California school that closed after staff fatally restrained a 13-year-old boy failed to get a federal judge to dismiss all the claims against it.

The child’s parents sued Guiding Hands School and other agencies, arguing the school acted under color of state law, that the child faced severe harassment and the school acted with indifference.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta ruled Monday that a majority of claims against Guiding Hands will proceed, dismissing only two of them.

The Joe Biden appointee dismissed all claims against the Yolo County Special Education Local Plan Area, Yolo County Office of Education and Davis Joint Unified School District. The state Department of Education also saw claims against it dismissed.

The parents sued the El Dorado County school after staff restrained their son at the special needs facility. They claimed he’d spit at another student, and an employee then forced him into a face-down position, holding him for almost two hours. The child suffered cardiac arrest and later died in November 2018.

Calabretta determined the school acted under color of law, as it was a state actor. The special education local plan area placed him at the school, he remained a public school student, and the state knew about the use of physical restraints. Also, the school had state certification to provide special education services on its behalf.

“At the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient to establish that the state and GHS were in a position of interdependence in providing special education to students on behalf of the state, such that the state and GHS must be considered joint participants,” the judge wrote.

Calabretta also declined to dismiss a claim under the state education code, which forbids severe harassment that deprives someone of equal access to education. The judge found the child faced physical restraints in response to his disability, and the school was deliberately indifferent.

A state Unruh Act claim also will proceed. The act prohibits businesses from discriminating against people.

The school argued it wasn’t a business. Calabretta determined it was a private entity that had contracts to provide special education services.

“At the pleading stage, the court is satisfied that these allegations establish that GHS is a business establishment,” the judge added.

Calabretta also kept the parents’ negligence claim, but dismissed a negligence per se claim.

The school had a duty of care to its students, which the child’s parents say was breached by the use of restraints and unnecessary force. That kept the negligence claim in place.

However, the judge dismissed a negligence per se claim — which requires a violation of a law, as opposed to negligence, which hinges on a breach of duty.

Calabretta also dismissed a claim that the school violated the Rehabilitation Act. Under the act, someone with a disability can’t be excluded from programs that receive federal funding. The parents failed to show the school chose to receive federal dollars.

The parents can amend both claims the judge dismissed.

Pivoting to the educational agencies, Calabretta determined the parents’ arguments hinged on nonspecific accusations that they knew about the dangers of physical restraints. More importantly, he wrote that the complaint made no real link between the agencies and the school’s use of restraints and excessive force.

“Nothing in the court’s order here is intended to diminish the tragic loss of life or minimize the seriousness of plaintiffs’ claims,” Calabretta wrote. “The court’s focus at this stage is purely on ensuring the legal sufficiency of the allegations before it.”

Attorneys for the parents, school and educational agencies couldn’t be reached for comment.