exhaustion is futile in this case. As 54 (9th Cir.2002) (requiring exhaustion under IDEA where parents brought action under Section 1983 requesting money damages to compensate them for lost educational opportunities, embarrassment, psychological injury, emotional distress and humiliation); Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 122 F.Supp.2d 104, 111 (D.Mass.2000). Finally, Plaintiffs reliance on McCormick v. Waukegan Sch. Dist. # 60, 374 F.3d 564 (7th Cir.2004) is misplaced as that case involved allegations of physical abuse leading to serious kidney damage that permanently reduced the student’s quality of life. In short, the nature of the student’s claims in McCormick were physical not educational. Id. at 569; see also Padilla v. Sch. Dist. No. 1., 233 F.3d 1268, 1274-75 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Witte v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d
holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required holding that a student with disabilities who suffered a fractured skull and exacerbation of a seizure disorder when placed in an unsupervised windowless closet did not have to exhaust her administrative remedies under the idea because these physical injuries were outside the scope of the idea holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea 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 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