Payne Ex Rel. D.P. v. Peninsula School District
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15657
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- D.P., a disabled minor with oral motor apraxia and autism, attended Artondale Elementary in Peninsula School District during 2003-04 in a contained classroom.
- Coy, the teacher, used a small room described as a time-out/safe room; payees consented only to time-out (not punishment) with doors open and supervision, but alleged Coy punished D.P. in the room.
- Paynes claimed Coy used the room for punitive purposes, resulting in D.P. urination/defecation on himself; Paynes requested Coy stop, but alleged continued use.
- Mediation occurred; the district and Paynes transferred D.P. to another school; Paynes did not pursue a formal IDEA due process hearing.
- In 2005, Windy Payne filed §1983 and state tort claims alleging Fourth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments and IDEA violations; district court dismissed for lack of exhaustion under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).
- Panel initially affirmed dismissal under Robb v. Bethel SD; en banc rehearing granted to reassess IDEA exhaustion, culminating in a relief-centered framework for exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is IDEA § 1415(l) exhaustion jurisdictional? | Payne argues exhaustion is jurisdictional per prior panel precedents. | District argues exhaustion is required as a jurisdictional bar. | Exhaustion in § 1415(l) is not jurisdictional. |
| Do non-IDEA claims require IDEA exhaustion when relief sought could be provided by the IDEA? | Payne seeks non-IDEA § 1983 and state claims; relief may be outside IDEA. | If relief could be provided by the IDEA, exhaustion applies. | Non-IDEA claims need exhaustion only to the extent the relief sought is also available under the IDEA. |
| What standard governs exhaustion under § 1415(l) after en banc decision? | Robb’s injury-centered approach should control. | Exhaustion should be relief-centered, focusing on what the plaintiff seeks. | Adopt a relief-centered approach: exhaustion required when relief sought could be provided by the IDEA, with three specified circumstances. |
| What are the three situations that compel IDEA exhaustion under the relief-centered approach? | Exhaustion should be limited to cases where IDEA remedies are sought or equivalent, or where denial of a FAPE is implicated. | Exhaustion should apply broadly where relief could be provided under the IDEA. | Exhaustion required when (i) the plaintiff seeks an IDEA remedy or its functional equivalent, (ii) seeks prospective injunctive relief affecting an IEP/placement, or (iii) seeks relief arising from denial of a FAPE under § 504/IDEA-linked claims. |
| What procedure should district court follow on remand regarding amendment and dismissal? | Court should proceed with remaining claims; dismiss unexhausted ones. | Court should dismiss claims that require exhaustion and allow amendment as needed. | Remand with permission to amend; court may dismiss unexhausted claims and proceed with exhausted ones after applying the new standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robb v. Bethel School District No. 403, 308 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2002) (injury-centered exhaustion rule for IDEA claims)
- Witte v. Clark County School District, 197 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 1999) (retrospective injuries not requiring IDEA exhaustion)
- Blanchard v. Morton School Dist., 420 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion not required for non-IDEA injuries that cannot be remedied by IDEA)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (Supreme Court, 2010) (non-jurisdictional nature of certain procedural rules; approach to classification)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court, 2007) (PLRA exhaustion as affirmative defense, not pleading requirement)