With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and held that compensatory damages were available for violations of IDEA. The court reasoned that; absent a clear direction to the contrary by Congress, federal courts are empowered to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute. Emma C., 985 F.Supp. at 945. In Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi, the Second Circuit held that parents are entitled to bring a section 1983 action based on alleged violations of IDEA or the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. 832 F.2d at 755. Other courts have also recognized that a section 1983 action for statutory violation of IDEA should proceed. See also Cappil-lino v. Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 40 F.Supp.2d 513, 515, 516 (S.D.N.Y.1999). Walker v. D.C., 969 F.Supp. 794 (D.D.C. 1997) (<HOLDING>). In W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484 (3d Cir.1995),

A: holding that the plaintiff tribe was not a person who could sue under section 1983 to vindicate sovereign rights namely a claimed immunity from the state court process
B: holding that a plaintiff cannot bring an action under 42 usc  1983 against a state official in her individual capacity to vindicate rights created by title ii of the ada or section 504 of the rehabilitation act
C: holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea
D: holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea
C.