OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is the motion to dismiss of Defendants Mahopac Central School District (the “District”), District Superintendent Anthony DiCarlo, District Assistant Superintendent Dr. Gregory Stowell, District School Physician Dr. Bennett Pallant, District Administrator for Elementary Special Education Jeffrey Finton, and District School Board Members Leslie Mancuso, Michael Mongon, David Furfaro, Lawrence Keene, Ray McDonough, Lucy Massafra, Marc O’Connor, Adam Savino, and Michael Simone. (Doc. 37.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Facts For the purposes of the instant motion, I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 31 (“SAC”)), First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 21), original Complaint, (Doc. 1), and memorandum in opposition to the motion, (Doc. 39 (“P’s Mem.”)). See Washington v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Correction, No. 13-CV-5322, 2015 WL 408941, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015) (court may consider facts from pro se plaintiff’s original complaint even if they have not been repeated in amended complaint); Braxton v. Nichols, No. 08-CV-8568, 2010 WL 1010001, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010) (“[A]llegations made in a pro se plaintiff’s memorandum of law, where they are consistent with those in the complaint, may also be considered on a motion to dismiss.”). Plaintiff Jonathan Schneider’s minor child, J.S., is diagnosed with conditions including epilepsy, autism, ADHD, and intellectual disabilities. (SAC 24.) J.S. attended public school in Mahopac Central School District from September 2017 through August 2020. (Id.
25-26.) On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff met with Defendants DiCarlo, Finton, Stowell, and Pallant to discuss J.S.’s accommodations. (Id. 41.) At the meeting, Plaintiff voiced concerns relating to parent access to classrooms, the protocol for communication between parents and faculty, classroom seating arrangements, and the need for a sensory room. (Id. 43.) In early October J.S.’s dedicated one-to-one aide, Joann Stroud, informed Plaintiff that she would be leaving her position with the District because Finton had asked her to take on duties with an additional student, and then asked her to resign her position after she voiced concerns about the proposed new plan. (Id.
