a plaintiff may not bring suit under § 1983 to enforce the predecessor of the IDEA— the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984). In so holding, the Court found that the EHA was a “comprehensive scheme” that showed that Congress intended potential plaintiffs to “pursue those claims through the carefully tailored administrative and judicial mechanism set out in the statute.” Id. at 1009, 104 S.Ct. 3457. In Rancho Palos Verdes, the Court cited Smith favorably: “We have found § 1983 unavailable to remedy violations in two cases: Sea Clammers and Smith. Both of these decisions rested upon the existence of more restrictive remedies provided in the violated statute itself. See Smith, 468 U.S. at 1011-12, 104 S.Ct. 3457 (<HOLDING>).” 544 U.S. at 121, 125 S.Ct. 1453. Plaintiffs
holding that the procedure outlined in title 22 preserves a parents right of procedural due process recognizing such a claim under  1983 holding that most of the fundamental constitutional procedural protections that are normally applicable to a criminal prosecution are not required for supervisedrelease proceedings as a matter of constitutional law including a right to counsel recognizing a  1983 action hvould render superfluous most of the detailed procedural protections outlined in the statute holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action