Restraint of student was reasonable

School teacher’s restraints of developmentally disabled student were reasonable. C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Schs, ISD No. 347, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63673 (D. Minn. August 19, 2008):

In this case, plaintiffs argue that Van Der Heiden seized C.N. by employing restraint techniques, a “thinking desk,” and a seclusion room and that defendant school officials failed to stop such seizures. Defendants maintain that such procedures are not seizures because they were used as educational techniques consented to as part of C.N.’s IEP. The court need not decide the issue, however, because such actions, if seizures, were reasonable.

Where an authorized professional’s treatment of a disabled individual “is not a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards,” her actions are reasonable. See Heidemann, 84 F.3d at 1030 (qualified immunity proper for substantive due process claim against defendant who recommended use of blanket restraint on disabled student). C.N.’s IEP–developed by educational specialists in conjunction with J.N. and approved of annually by J.N.–detailed educational and behavioral methods for C.N.’s teachers and set the standard for accepted practice. As noted, the IEP allowed the use of restraint holds and seclusion. Van Der Heiden, therefore, was not substantially departing from accepted professional judgment when she used such methods on C.N. See Couture v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Schs., No. 07-2133, — F.3d –, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16648, 2008 WL 3092955, at *5-11 (10th Cir. Aug. 7, 2008) (granting qualified immunity on fourth amendment seizure claim when IEP called for timeouts and seclusion). Indeed, Van Der Heiden was required to follow the IEP and use these techniques to help manage C.N.’s behavior. See Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022, 1027 n.3 (8th Cir. 2003) (IDEA violation when school fails to follow essential IEP elements); see also Couture, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16648, 2007 WL 3092955, at *7 (“If we do not allow teachers to rely on a plan specifically approved by the student’s parents and which they are statutorily required to follow, we will put teachers in an impossible position – exposed to litigation no matter what they do.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs have not set forth facts establishing a cognizable Fourth Amendment violation, and the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.