United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D
April 3, 1984
CHRISTOPHER HAYWARD, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES R. THOMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Christopher Hayward and his parents (collectively "Haywards") have
filed a twocount Complaint against a group of state and local officials,
charging violations of statutory duties created by Christopher's
condition as a handicapped child. As attorney for the state defendants,
the Attorney General has moved for partial dismissal of the Complaint in
four respects. Each legal position asserted by the Attorney General is
sound, and the motion is granted in its entirety.
First, there is no basis for joining Governor Thompson as a defendant.
Nothing the Governor does — and his sole alleged function is
appointment of the Illinois State Board of Education's members*fn1
— is asserted to have caused the alleged harm suffered by
Haywards. They cite no authority at all for their position, while the
Attorney General properly refers to a number of relevant cases, most
particularly the decision in Committee for Public Education and Religious
Liberty v. Rockefeller, 322 F. Supp. 678, 685-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).
Second, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504 ("Section 504"),
29 U.S.C. § 794, is not a predicate for the relief Haywards seek.
This Court's decision in William S. v. Gill, 572 F. Supp. 509, 517
(N.D.Ill. 1983) is squarely in point.
Third, the asserted pendent state law claim under Ill.Rev.Stat. ch.
122, ¶ 14-8.02 must also fail. Such a claim was always subject to
question (see William S., 572 F. Supp. at 518 n. 10), but it clearly
cannot survive the United States Supreme Court's recent amendment of the
Amendment in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman,
___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).*fn2
Fourth, once Haywards' Section 504 claim is gone, their prayer for
attorneys' fees vanishes with it. Haywards' remaining claim under the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 does not embody such
relief. Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205, 1217 (7th Cir. 1981).
For all these reasons:
1. Governor Thompson is dismissed as a defendant.
2. All references to Section 504 are stricken from
3. Complaint Count II is stricken.
4. Paragraph D of Count I's prayer for relief is
All the remaining state defendants are ordered to answer the Complaint as
so narrowed on or before April 18, 1984.