USCA1 Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 92-2157

RICHARD AMANN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
TOWN OF STOW, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellee.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Torruella, Cyr and Stahl,
Ciricut Judges.
______________
___________________
Richard Amann on brief pro se.
_____________

Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Beth D. Levi,

__________________
______________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Kevin Hensley and Needham and Warren on brief for appellee
_____________
__________________
Town of Stow.
Maynard M. Kirpalani,
Christine Hasiotis and
Parker,
______________________
___________________
_______
Coulter, Daley & White on brief for appellee Stow School System.
______________________
__________________
April 29, 1993
__________________

Per Curiam.
__________
learning

Appellant Christopher Amann is a child with

disabilities

who

lives

in

Stow,

Massachusetts.

Appellant Richard Amann is Christopher's father.

began to attend

public school in

Stow in 1983.

suffered from learning disabilities,

the Town was

Christopher
Because he
obligated

under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

20

U.S.C.

education

1400

et

seq., to

program" (IEP) for

the IEP annually.

produce

him, and to

an "individualized
review and update

See generally Amann v. Stow School System,

_____________ _____
__________________

982 F.2d 644, 646-47 (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (describing

Town's

obligations under IDEA).

The Town did so until 1987,

when Christopher's parents withdrew

him from the Stow school

system and placed him in a private school.

In 1990,

at the request of

Christopher's parents, Stow

came up with a new IEP that called for Christopher

to the Stow public schools.

to return

The Amanns rejected this IEP and

challenged its adequacy in a hearing before the Massachusetts

Bureau

of Special Education Appeals (BSEA).

See 20 U.S.C.
___

1415(b)(2) (requiring administrative "due process hearing" of

complaints

about IEPs).

The

BSEA hearing

officer decided

that Stow's proposed IEP was legally adequate.

Section
aggrieved by

1415(e)(2)

of

the

IDEA

authorizes

agency decisions concerning the

parties

adequacy of an

IEP to bring a civil action in either state or federal court,

seeking "such relief as the court determines is appropriate."

-2-

The Amanns
the

United

challenged the BSEA's procedures

States

District

Court

for

and findings in
the

District

of

Massachusetts.

The district court affirmed

the IEP, and we did the same on appeal.

the validity of

Amann v. Stow School

_____
___________

System, 982 F.2d at 649-53.

______
As

was its

1414(a)(5)
revision

duty

under

the

(requiring annual
of IEP), Stow

cover the period March

IDEA,

review

prepared a

see
___

and,

20

if

U.S.C.

appropriate,

new educational

1991-March 1992.

This IEP,

plan to
like its

predecessor, called for Christopher to attend public

in Stow.

The Amanns rejected this IEP, too, and again sought

review before the

1991, the
IEP was
action

schools

BSEA.

BSEA hearing
adequate.

On

In a decision

dated September

officer ruled that

May 21,

in the district court.

the complaint as untimely.

9,

Stow's 1991-1992

1992, the Amanns

filed this

The district court dismissed

This appeal followed.

We affirm.

I
_
The
time

IDEA, like

many federal

limit for lawsuits brought

statutes, does not

under its terms.

set a

"In such

situations we do not ordinarily assume that Congress intended

that

there be no time

limit on actions

at all; rather, our

task is to 'borrow'

the most suitable statute or

of

some other

timeliness from

concluded that
most closely

source.

Congress intended
analogous statute

-3-

of

other rule

We have

generally

that the courts

apply the

limitations under

state

law,"
462

DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

___________
______________________________________
U.S.

151,

158

(1983),

provided

that

"it

is

inconsistent with federal law or policy to do so."

not

Wilson v.
______

Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985).

______
The district court, relying
in Gertel
______
783

decision

v. School Committee of Brookline School District,

______________________________________________

F.Supp. 701

limitations
judicial

on Judge Keeton's

(D.Mass. 1992),

period
review

that

of

"borrowed" the

governs

state

civil

agency

thirty-day

actions

decisions

seeking

under

the

Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act, M.G.L. c. 30A,

14.

Because the Amanns did

the

BSEA

their

decision,

claim

of

the time

the district

unless the

limitation period

not sue until eight months after

court's

court
choice

properly dismissed
of the

was somehow incorrect, or

bar under

the circumstances

thirty-day

its application
of this

case was

somehow inappropriate.
II
__
Except

to

suggest that

the

Gertel

decision "set

an

______
improper precedent,"
the district

the appellants do not seriously contest

court's choice

of a limitations

appropriate limitations period for

period.

The

IDEA actions, however, is

a question of first impression in this circuit, and the issue

has

not elsewhere generated

Several courts,
the short

like the

a harmonious judicial response.

district court here,

(generally 30-day)

limitations

have applied

periods found

in

-4-

state administrative procedure

administrative
1415(e)(2),
periods

and

are

resolution

procedure
that

laws

their

consistent
of

disputes

learning-disabled
Columbia, 866
________

with

are

analogous

relatively
the

over the

children.

F.2d 461

acts, ruling both that

IDEA's

brief

v.

(D.C.Cir. 1989); Adler

_____
F.2d

454

(2d

Section

limitations

goal

educational
Spiegler
________

to

state

of

prompt

placement of
District of
____________
v. Education
_________

Department of New York,

_________________________

760

Cir.

Department of Education v.

Carl D., 695 F.2d 1154

1985);

(9th Cir.

_______________________

_______

1983); Gertel, supra; Bow School District

______ _____ ___________________
F.Supp.
large

546 (D.N.H. 1990).

concede

that

v. Quentin W., 750

__________

Other courts, though they by and

state

administrative

procedure

laws

provide the closest available analogue to Section 1415(e)(2),

but see
_______

Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District,

________
_____________________________

665 F.2d

443 (3d Cir. 1981), reason that short limitations periods are
nevertheless

too

inconsistent

parental involvement"
under the IDEA.
Cir.

with

to allow their

the

IDEA's

"goal

application to actions

See Schimmel v. Spillane, 819 F.2d 477

___ ________
________

1987); Scokin v. Texas,

______
_____

of

723 F.2d 432

(4th

(5th Cir. 1984).

These courts have instead borrowed less analogous, but longer

--

and

in

the

courts'

view,

more

compatible

--

state

limitations periods, such as those applicable to tort claims,

see Scokin, 723 F.2d
___ ______
at 454 (two years),

at 438 (two years); Tokarcik,

________
or to actions for services

-5-

665 F.2d

rendered but

not paid for.

Janzen v. Knox County Board of Education, 790

______
_______________________________

F.2d 484, 489 (6th Cir. 1986) (three years).

We conclude
Massachusetts'

that the district

thirty-day

court correctly borrowed

limitations

under its Administrative Procedure

on

Act.

period

for

actions

Since the arguments

both sides have been well-rehearsed in the cases cited --

and

since the

appellants

have offered

challenge to the district court's

only a

perfunctory

choice -- we will

attempt

to state our reasons briefly.

The
contains

Massachusetts

Administrative

the "most analogous"

the civil action authorized by

Massachusetts

primarily

on

the administrative

state

record, see
___

Like the

c. 30A,

under the IDEA

736 F.2d 773,

("Burlington II"), and will

_____________

"impos[e]

under M.G.L.

(APA)

of action to

Section 1415(e)(2).

agency decisions

Department of Education,
_______________________

procedural

state law cause

courts operating

courts reviewing

Procedure Act

14,

will rely

Burlington v.
__________

790 (1st Cir.

1984)

scrutinize the agency action for

regularity and substantive validity, but will not

their view

agency.

of preferable

. .

. methods"

Board of Education v. Rowley,

___________________
______

206-207 (1982); cf. M.G.L. c. 30A

___

on the

458 U.S. 176,

14(7)(g) (requiring court

to respect agency decision unless arbitrary or capricious, an

abuse

of discretion,

or

otherwise not

in accordance

with

law).

Thus, the "character

1415(e)(2),

like that

of

of the

hearing" under

the hearing

Section

conducted under

the

-6-

Massachusetts

statute,

is

essentially

"one

of

review."

Burlington II, 736 F.2d at 791.

_____________
The short limitations period of the Massachusetts APA is
fully

consistent

disposition

of

with

one

disputes

educational placement.

goal

of

the

about

handicapped

"[S]peedy

useful

for

such resolutions

the quick
child's

resolutions to the IEP and

placement disputes that characterize

necessary

IDEA:

1415(e)(2) actions are

to serve

any substantively

purposes," Bow School District v.

_____________________

Quentin W.,
__________

750

F.Supp. at 550, because "[c]hildren develop quickly and their

needs often

change substantially

See also Burlington II,

________ _____________
teaching is

from year to

year."

736 F.2d at 798 ("Delay

Id.
___

in remedial

. . . likely to be highly injurious to [learning

disabled] children").

The legislative

history,

statutory

terms,

and regulatory

promptness

as

an

framework of

indispensable

element

scheme.

See generally
______________

Spiegler,
________

(D.C.Cir.

1989);

760

Adler,
_____

the IDEA

866

F.2d at

all emphasize

of the
F.2d

459-60;

statutory

461,

466-67

Bow School
___________

District, 750 F.Supp. at 550-51.

________
It is true that the thirty-day limitations period may to
some extent frustrate a

competing goal: parental involvement

in enforcing the IDEA's requirements.

any
___

statute

"policies

of
of

limitations
repose"

enforcement," Wilson
______

will

over

v. Garcia,
______

But the imposition

to

some

"substantive
471 U.S.

extent
policies

at 271, and

of

favor
of
this

-7-

fact

alone

is not

sufficient reason

shorter

limitations period of

"Were it

otherwise, a federal

longer

statute

of

limitations

a closely

for

rejecting the

analogous statute.

court should always

over

an

prefer a

alternative,

but

shorter, period, a
rejected before."

type of approach [the

Supreme Court has]

Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 58 (1984)

_______
_______

(Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

The
period,

potentially

harsh effects

moreover, are

mitigated

of a

short limitations

in this

context by

three

factors which, taken together, so narrow any

"inconsistency"

with

as

the

goal

of

parental

involvement

application of the most analogous

Life Insurance Co. v.
___________________
preclusive

EEOC,
____

state law.

432 U.S.

have clashed

permit

Cf. Occidental
___ __________

355 (1977)

inconsistency where application

of limitations would

to

(finding

of state statute

fundamentally with

Equal

Employment Opportunity Act's requirement that EEOC, an agency

plagued

by backlogs,

engage

in time-consuming

process

of

investigation and settlement exploration before filing suit).

First,

the IDEA

parents notice "of all

section."
interpreted
applicable

20 U.S.C.
this

instructs school

to give

procedures available pursuant to this

1415(b)(1)(D).

provision

limitations

authorities

to

period,

Several

require
in

order

courts have

notice
to

of

any

ensure

that

parents who go through the administrative proceedings without

the

aid of

a lawyer

do not

lose their

-8-

right to

judicial

review merely out of ignorance of the law.

F.2d at
707;

See Spiegler, 866

___ ________

467; Scokin, 723 F.2d at 438; Gertel, 783 F.Supp. at

______
______

Bow School District, 750

___________________

F.Supp. at 551;

cf. Carl D.,

___ _______

695 F.2d at 1158 (declining to reach issue).

Second, the
day

period

is

1415(e)(2),

parents' only obligation during the thirtyto

decide

a decision they need

have been defined, the

has been

whether

to

sue

under

make only after the issues

_____

dispute has been heard, and

created in the administrative forum.

contemplating

Section

action

under

the

IDEA

--

a record

Thus, parents
like

parties

considering action under the Massachusetts APA -- do not bear

the same
legal
or

pre-litigation burdens of factual investigation and

research that face, say, a party who has just suffered

discovered

an injury

lawsuit.

Cf.
___

(rejecting

use, in

limitations

Burnett
_______

periods

and
v.

for

an aggrieved person who

thinking about

Grattan,
_______

federal civil
filing

discrimination claims, where

strikingly different"

is

468

U.S.

filing
at

rights actions,
administrative

50-51

of state
employment

"practical difficulties

facing

invokes administrative remedies

from preparation needed to

are

initiate a

civil rights lawsuit).

Finally,
revised at
the

the IDEA

requires that

least annually, 20

Amanns' own

IEPs be

U.S.C.

experience shows,

litigating afresh over the merits of

reviewed and

1414(a)(5),

and, as

allows parents

to begin

each new IEP.

Parents

-9-

who,
their

despite notice
rights,"

of

the limitations

therefore,

will

educational placement for a single

period, "sleep

lose

no

more

than

on
the

school year, and will not

have to wait long for a new opportunity to participate in the

development, implementation -- and if
and

judicial review

-- of

needed, administrative

their child's

educational plan.

See Spiegler, 866 F.2d at 468.

___ ________
III
___
The Amanns
right limitations

contend that,

period for IDEA

the time bar should not have

here.

even if

thirty

days is

the

actions in Massachusetts,

operated to deny them a lawsuit

They give three reasons for this conclusion.

First, the
notice

of

the

Amanns argue
thirty-day

that they
limit.

As

described,

the IDEA directs the states

parents

. .

1415(b)(1)(D),

of all
and

procedures

some

courts

received inadequate
we

have

to "fully inform the

available," 20
have

already

held

U.S.C.

"that

this

requirement imposes a duty . . . to give, at the time a final

administrative

decision

is

rendered, clear

notice

of the

availability of judicial review and of the 30-day limitations

period."
gave no

Spiegler, 866 F.2d at 467.

________
notice of any time

In Spiegler, the agency

________

limit, and the court

therefore refused to

invoke the limitations bar

under consideration.

Id. at 469.
___

of appeals
in the case

-10-

The Amanns concede that the BSEA gave them notice of the
thirty-day
decision.

limitations
Attached to

period at

the

time

it rendered

the September 9, 1991 decision

document entitled "Effect of

was a

Decision and Rights of Appeal,"

which stated:
Any party aggrieved by the Bureau decision may file a
complaint
in
the
Superior
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United
States for Massachusetts for review of the Bureau
decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(e)(2). Under Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 14(1), appeal of a
final Bureau decision must be filed within 30 days of
receipt of the decision.
We
notice

agree with

the

identical notice).

were,

in Gertel
______

that the

given here, though "not a model of careful drafting .

. . was sufficient."

status

district court

Gertel, 783 F.Supp. at

______
We

708 (assessing

do not see how the appellants' pro se

______

affected the adequacy of

the notice.

If the Amanns

because of their pro se status, ignorant

_______

of the law,

then the only message they could reasonably have derived from
the document attached
days in

that

despite

their lack

about the workings of

of counsel,

is

one must

Massachusetts is
30 days."

be borrowed

clear that

thirty

And if the

knowledgeable

limitations rules to be "aware

1415(e)(2) provides no statute of

therefore
notice

was: You have

which to challenge this ruling in court.

Amanns were,
enough

to the decision

limitation and that

from state law,

the position

of the

Commonwealth of

that the appropriate limitations

783 F.Supp. at 708.

[then] the

period is

Either way, the notice should

-11-

have caused the

risk

if

appellants to

they did

understand that

not exercise

their

they took

right to

sue within

thirty days of receiving the BSEA decision.

The Amanns'
estopped from

second argument is that

the defendants are

raising a limitations defense

to this action,

which challenges the 1991-92 IEP, by virtue of

to assert the

limitations bar

previous IDEA

action, which

1990-91 IEP.

The simple response is that the

the

action

previous

defense.
running

to the

not

have

defendants to

made

limitations

14(1) starts the limitations clock

petition for rehearing has been

with the agency,

within thirty days after

timely filed

receipt of notice

of agency denial of such petition for rehearing."

filed a motion for

denied

v.

a rehearing of the BSEA's

Stow School System, 982

___________________

the motion

on October

their first IDEA complaint

days

F.2d at

15, 1990.

The Amanns

1990 decision.
648.

The

The BSEA

Amanns filed

on November 13, 1990, twenty-nine

after the BSEA denied their motion for a rehearing, and

therefore
cannot

of the

upon "receipt of notice of the final decision of the

agency or if a

Amann
_____

Amanns'

challenged the adequacy

could

M.G.L. c. 30A,

as a defense

their failure

within

fault the

the

thirty-day limitations

defendants for failing

period.

to make

We

a defense

they did not have.

Finally, the Amanns say

that the new limitations period

should not be "retroactively applied" to their case.

But the

-12-

practice

of

applying

both to

others by

making judicial
the parties

and against whom

overwhelmingly
traditional

the

decisions

norm,

function of

"fully retroactive,

before the

claims may be
and

is

the courts

in

court and

to all

pressed . .
keeping

to decide

with

. is
the

cases before

them based upon their best current understanding of the law."

James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 2443
____________________________
_______
(1991).
The Supreme Court has, on occasion, made an exception to
the rule of retroactivity.
404

U.S.

97,

106-107

Under Chevron Oil Co.

_______________
(1971),

the

Court

"has

v. Huson,
_____
accepted

prospectivity . . . where a decision displaces a principle of

law on which

reliance may reasonably

where prospectivity is on balance

have been placed,

and

warranted by its effect on

the

operation of

the new

rule and

by the

inequities that

might otherwise result from retroactive application."

James
_____

B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 111 S.Ct. at 2445.

______________________
_______
This is not such a case.
to apply new limitations
would

be "to

bar an

The Supreme Court has declined

rules retroactively where to

action that

was timely

do so

under binding

Circuit precedent."

Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow

________________________________________

v.

S.Ct. 2773,

Gilbertson, 111
__________

dissenting).

For example, in

Khazraji, 481
________

U.S. 604,

2786 (1991)

(O'Connor, J.,

Saint Francis College

_____________________

608-609 (1987), the

the prospective application of

v. Al___

Court affirmed

a new limitations period that

-13-

"overruled
the

clearly established

plaintiff had relied in

Oil Co.
_______

v. Huson,
_____

404 U.S.

Circuit precedent"

filing suit.
at 107

on which

See also Chevron

________ _______

(prospectively applying

limitations rule

that "effectively overruled a

long line of

decisions by the Court of Appeals").

But

the

Court

retroactively

has
___

where

to

reasonable expectations
Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d
____________

applied

new

do

so would

of a

party."

194, 198 (1st

limitations
not

rules

"overturn[]

Rowlett
_______

the

v. Anheuser_________

Cir. 1987).

Thus, in

Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 662-63 (1987), the
_______
________________
Court

affirmed

limitations

the

period

retroactive
where

there

application
had

of

previously

new

been

"no

authoritative specification of

which statute of

limitations

applied" to plaintiffs' claim,

"and hence no clear precedent

on which [plaintiffs] could have relied when they filed their

complaint."
Here,

as in

Goodman,
_______

there was

favoring a longer limitations

can

precedent"

period on which the appellants

claim to have relied while deciding whether to file suit

under the IDEA

court

"no clear

had

not

between September
then

circuits that had done

decisional

law among

decided

the

1991 and May

limitations

so were split, and the

the

district courts

pointed to a thirty-day limitations period.

-14-

1992.

This

issue,

the

only existing

in this

circuit

As to the remaining Chevron factors, the appellants have

_______
not

identified,

and

we

do

see,

retroactive

would hinder

limitations

rule or the administration of the IDEA.

a case like Linkletter

__________

(1965),

in which

exclusionary
rule,

the

rule only

by

the utmost."

This is

the then-new

the purpose

of

would not

have been

to

in

cases

which

and since retroactive

of justice

Nor will retroactive application of the new

inequity to the [appellants] who

with knowledge that [the

IDEA actions]

thirty-day

U.S. 618, 636-38

"tax[ed] the administration

limitations rule "result in

are charged

application

had already occurred,

operation would have

to

police action,

the

to apply

prospectively since

retroactive

illegal conduct

v. Walker, 381
______

Court decided

to deter illegal

furthered

operation of

how

application

not

the

not

limitations period for

was an unsettled question,"

Goodman, 482 U.S.

_______

at 663, and who received a notice telling them that they only
had thirty days in which to sue.
Because we

affirm the dismissal on the merits, we again

need not decide whether

Mr. Amann, a non-lawyer

acting "pro

___
se,"
__

was capable

of representing

his son

on appeal.

Amann v. Stow School District, 982 F.2d at 648 n.2.

_____
____________________
Norton
______

v. Mathews,
_______

427 U.S.

524, 532

See
___

See also
________

(1976); Narragansett
____________

Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 8 n.5 (1st Cir. 1991).

____________
________
Affirmed.
_________

-15-