Greg Wiatt v. Prescott Unified School District ( 2009 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 13 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GREG WIATT; et al., No. 08-16273
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-08082-JWS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
PRESCOTT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, an Arizona School District; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and CARNEY, *** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Greg and Joyce Wiatt, on behalf of their two school-aged children, Weston
and Emily Wiatt, appeal the dismissal of their action against Prescott Unified
School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and
state laws. The Wiatts alleged that their two autistic children were denied a free
appropriate public education, as required by the IDEA. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to
dismiss a case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA, Hoeft v.
Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298, 1302-3 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Wiatts’ federal law claims without
prejudice, for failure to exhaust their IDEA administrative remedies. “The
dispositive question generally is whether the plaintiff has alleged injuries that
could be redressed to any degree by the IDEA’s administrative procedures and
remedies.” Robb v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 308 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002). The
Wiatts failed to show that their injuries could not be redressed to any degree by
filing an IDEA administrative complaint, or that filing such a complaint would be
futile. In addition, the Wiatts may not pursue their other federal claims without
first exhausting their IDEA administrative remedies. 20 U.S.C. §1415(l); see also
Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that
2
IDEA rights are not enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Kutasi v. Las Virgenes
Unified Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d 1162, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal
without prejudice of complaints filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act for lack of exhaustion under IDEA).
AFFIRMED.
3