Case: 12-11377 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11377
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-21592-CMA
ROCHELLE DRIESSEN,
Mother of minor children B.O d/o/b 1993, and B.O. d/o/b 1994,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
MARISA TINKLER-MENDEZ,
Judge, 11th Circuit in and for Dade County,
Florida (Criminal Division),
HARVEY RUVIN, Clerk of Courts 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 28, 2013)
Case: 12-11377 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before BARKETT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rochelle Driessen, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal
of her claims against the Miami-Dade County School Board (“the School Board”),
and Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of Courts for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
Driessen claims that the School Board denied her an opportunity to participate in
decisions regarding her handicapped daughter’s education, in violation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).
Driessen sued Ruvin pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Driessen was
deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest in a well-maintained state
court docket because, she alleges, that the clerk failed to keep a docket of her
dependency hearings.
The district court granted motions that dismissed the claims on the following
grounds: (1) as to Ruvin, Driessen’s factual allegation was patently meritless in
light of public records indicating that a docket was kept and, therefore, the court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, she failed to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6); and (2) as to the School Board, Driessen failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies before filing in federal court or, alternatively, she lacked
statutory standing as a “parent” under the IDEA as the state court awarded
permanent guardianship of the children to the children’s maternal grandparents.
2
Case: 12-11377 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 3 of 3
On appeal, Driessen first argues that the district court erred in granting the
motions to dismiss because the court failed to obtain and consider the complete
record of the underlying state administrative proceedings, as required by the IDEA.
See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(i) (stating that when a civil action is brought in
court to challenge a state administrative decision, the court “shall receive the
records of the administrative proceedings”). However, Driessen failed to present
this argument to the district court. Even assuming that Driessen did not waive this
argument, the IDEA requires Driessen first to exhaust her administrative remedies
prior even to bringing her claim against the School Board, which she failed to do.
See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). 1 Regarding her claim against Ruvin, the completeness
or incompleteness of the IDEA administrative record is irrelevant because
Driessen’s claim arose under § 1983, which does not speak to that issue.
Finally, Driessen argues that the court had no personal jurisdiction to grant
the motions to dismiss because, she alleges, process was never served on either the
School Board or Ruvin. First, the record establishes that the School Board and
Ruvin were properly served. But, even assuming that the School Board and Ruvin
were not properly served, the court had personal jurisdiction over them because
neither party contested personal jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
1
Driessen’s May 5, 2011 complaint stated that her state administrative hearing was
scheduled for June 14, 2011— more than a month later.
3