With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (D.D.C.2001). Because IDEIA does not provide for compensatory damages, plaintiffs occasionally assert Section 1983 claims to seek monetary relief as an additional remedy for IDEIA violations. Defendants argue, however, that in the instant action plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under Section 1983. Indeed, several other courts have dismissed similarly pled complaints for failing to state a Section 1983 claim. See, e.g., Savoy-Kelly v. Eastern High Sch., Civ. No. 04-1751, 2006 WL 1000346, slip op. at 10-11 (D.D.C. April 14, 2006); R.S. v. District of Columbia, 292 F.Supp.2d 23, 28 (D.D.C.2003); Jackson v. District of Columbia, Civ. No. 02-968, slip op. at 10 (D.D.C. Sept. 21, 2003); see generally Sellers v. Sch. Bd. of City of Mannassas, 141 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 871, 119 S.Ct. 168,

A: holding that bjecause idea provides a comprehensive remedial scheme for violations of its own requirements  parties may not sue under section 1983 for an idea violation
B: holding that parents did not have standing to sue under  1983 to enforce the predicate rights secured by idea and section 504
C: holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea
D: recognizing that idea is simply not an antidiscrimination statute so that pure discrimination claim was not barred by parents failure to exhaust remedies under idea
A.