L.S. v. Edu-Hi ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 27 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
L. A. S., individually and on behalf of her No. 14-17443
minor child, S.A.S.,
D.C. Nos.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 1:14-cv-00071-SOM-BMK
1:12-cv-00213-SOM-BMK
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, State MEMORANDUM*
of Hawaii, Department of Education;
KATHRYN MATAYOSHI, in her official
capacity as Superintendent of the Hawaii
Public Schools,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2017
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: FISHER, PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
L.A.S., individually and on behalf of her minor child, S.A.S., brought this
appeal involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not err in reversing the administrative hearing
officer’s (AHO) first determination, because L.A.S.’s administrative complaint did
not plead the issue the AHO decided. See Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker
Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2007) (reviewing a district court’s legal
conclusions de novo). Plaintiff has not cited any authority preventing the district
court from limiting the scope of the proceedings to those issues raised in the
administrative complaint and argued by a plaintiff. See K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t
of Educ., Haw., 665 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the party
challenging the district court’s holding bears the burden of proof on appeal); see
also Cty. of San Diego v. Calif. Special Educ. Hearing Office, 93 F.3d 1458, 1465
(9th Cir. 1996) (holding the scope of the administrative hearing is limited to the
administrative complaint raised to obtain the hearing).
2. The district court also did not err in affirming the AHO’s second
determination finding no predetermination by the Hawaii Department of Education
(DOE). See K.D., 665 F.3d at 1123 (holding a school district violates the IDEA if
it predetermines a student’s placement before the individualized education plan is
2
developed). Plaintiff has not shown the DOE was unwilling to consider locating
S.A.S. in private school. See id. (considering the DOE’s actions and intent in a
predetermination inquiry). Further, Plaintiff has not cited to any authority
supporting her argument that the inquiry turns on her interpretation of the letter
rather than the DOE’s intent. See id. at 1117 (explaining that the party challenging
the district court’s holding bears the burden of proof on appeal). The March 2011
letter is somewhat troubling but, on its own, is insufficient to carry Plaintiff’s
burden.
AFFIRMED.
3