C.N. Ex Rel. J.N. v. Willmar Public Schools, Independent School District No. 347

MELLOY, target Before BEAM and hibited various behaviors. After COLLOTON, Judges. problems, Circuit continued behavioral the Dis- thinking desk and once posture at the should be as- agreed C.N. trict and J.N. restroom, Ardoff, causing an outside evalu- use of the by Tim denied C.N. sessed Community reported Minnesota also to J.N. ator from Southern an accident. C.N. evaluation, After the Support Services. her and “choke[d] Der Heiden Van to Lincoln transferred C.N. District very hurt her much.” that the restraints school, in District Elementary, another (the grade year third During C.N.’s IEP and BIP were January 2004. C.N.’s year), paraprofessional 2006-07 school of Ar- incorporate some also revised Der Heiden to the Minneso- reported Van spe- did not suggestions. Ardhoff dhoff s (MDE) Mal- Department ta of Education’s of restraint cifically recommend the use of Minors Division for maltreat- treatment Over J.N.’s holds or seclusion. This was the third such ment BIP objections, continued Der Heiden. report made Van to address procedures such to authorize August allegations learned of those J.N. During later target behaviors. certain and filed a with MDE’s evaluations, recommended Ardhoff Accountability Compliance Division seclusion, allegedly continued to and J.N. Ultimately, according to September 2006. object of restraints and seclu- to the use investigations complaint, the MDE Lincoln, time at Throughout C.N.’s sion. Heiden violated a num- concluded Van Der adjust- continually IEP team as a child with times, ber C.N.’s IEP, and at all relevant ed her by disability and also maltreated C.N. de- procedures. IEP authorized controlled During to the restroom. nying her access Lincoln, attending C.N. worked While investigations, the District the MDE’s Heiden, a with Defendant Lisa Van Der on leave and con- placed Van Der Heiden Der Heid- special education teacher. Van investigation allega- own into ducted its proce- used the controlled en sometimes students, that she mistreated two one tions BIP, in and re- dures authorized C.N.’s previous of whom was C.N. On two occa- in behavioral and corded the incidents sions in 2005 and the District had logs kept she for her stu- communication investigations but found conducted similar during complaint alleges dents. The Der This no misconduct Van Heiden. care, time Der Heid- under Van time, the found evidence that Van District techniques improperly en used those and Der Heiden denied C.N. access to the rest- excessively and also mistreated C.N. For lapse the incident to a room but attributed example, allegedly Van Der Heiden made Thus, judgment. Van Der Heiden was “thinking at a and hold a C.N. sit desk” any the District for disciplined never time, posture specified for a physical allegations.1 maltreatment Without notice face restraint or seclusion. Van Der else J.N., Lin- Der Heiden returned to Van allegedly yelled Heiden also and shouted C.N., C.N., 2006. She remained at once coln on October demeaned and belittled 6, 2006, until but was not hair she would not hold Lincoln October pulled C.N.’s when ever, complaint "[u]ltimately, paragraphs in the 1. The district court stated refers to allega- investigations District dismissed the maltreatment and that discuss the District's Heiden,” against tions Van Der which C.N. allege that Van Der Heiden was never disci- vigorously appeal, noting al- contests on she any plined by the District for maltreatment. leged the MDE conducted the maltreatment Thus, simply we think the court meant investigation Heiden and concluded Van Der investigation internal indicate the District's preceding engage in The did maltreatment. wrongdoing by Van Heiden. revealed no Der opinion, in the district court’s how- sentence District, no and state claims following week and had Dis- at school the trict Board Chairman Michael contact with C.N. Carlson further capacity, Heiden, official and his Van Der contacted De- repeatedly thereafter J.N. Leedom, principal Lincoln Rebecca Simen- Leedom, Kathryn Super- District fendant Supervisor son and of Special Education intendent, if to be notified and asked Smith, Programming Susan in both their Heiden returned to Lincoln. when Van Der capacities. individual and official As rele- 29, 2006, Leedom wrote On November vant to appeal, this C.N. asserted federal her that Leedom had no and informed J.N. claims under the with Individuals Disabili- information to obligation provide (IDEA), ties Education Act Section 504 of subsequently withdrew her J.N. J.N. the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. from Lincoln and enrolled her at daughter § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and John’s, Atwater, private St. Fourteenth Amendments. The district Minnesota, remainder of her third for the court IDEA claim concluded C.N.’s failed grade year. J.N. enrolled C.N. as a matter of law because she did not public school district for the 2007- Atwater hearing on her claims year. OSschool until leaving the District after the District. 17, 2007, C.N., by On October and The court also remaining dismissed C.N.’s J.N., through requested an administrative federal claims for failure to state a claim hearing and filed a with the jurisdiction declined exercise over MDE, adequacy of the ed- challenging appeal her state law claims.3 This fol- provided by the District. ucational services lows.4 Relying beginning on a line of cases with II. DISCUSSION v. Board School Dis- 1, Cir.1998), trict No. 144 F.3d 574 the A. Standard Review (ALJ) Judge granted Administrative Law “This court reviews de novo the motion to dismiss the hear- the District’s dismiss, grant of a taking motion to all request jurisdiction lack of because ing for complaint facts the as true.” longer was no enrolled in the District C.N. Corp., Motors Owen Gen. and had transferred to Atwater without (8th Cir.2008) omitted). (quotation We a requesting hearing against the District. mind, however, although bear that a appealed ruling that the complaint C.N. to need not include detailed factual court,2 allegations, plaintiffs obligation pro- district and asserted various federal “a to Doty, papers 2. The Honorable David S. United States those and the exhibits filed in ” Judge District for the District of Minnesota. appeal.’ court can the constitute record on Branson, Junkie, Bath Junkie L.L.C. v. Bath challenge C.N. the 3. does not dismissal of her Inc., (8th Cir.2008) F.3d 559-60 IDEA or Section 504 claims the indi- (quoting Corp., Huelsman v. Civic Ctr. defendants, in vidual both their official and (8th Cir.1989)); F.2d see also Fed. capacities, individual or her claims under 10(a). R.App. P. Because these documents right procedur- § 1983 for violations of her to presented appeal, were for the first time on IDEA, al due and her under "they part are not of the record for our re- Equal Section 504 and the Protection Clause. view," we and cannot consider them. Bath Junkie, appendix, In her C.N. has included two Accordingly, 528 F.3d at 560. we part administrative decisions which are not grant Appellees’ pages motion to strike " appellate of the record below. 'An court Appendix any corresponding and facts properly only can consider the record and arguments Appellant’s and briefs. only facts before the district court and thus in all matters permit parental to re involvement of his entitlement grounds vide the concerning program the child’s educational than labels and conclu requires more lief parents to obtain adminis- sions, [to allow] recitation of the and a formulaic judicial review of decisions action will not do.” trative and of a cause of elements they unsatisfactory inappropri- deem Twombly, 550 U.S. Corp. Bell Atl. (2007) Thus, 555, 127 parent who is dissatis- 167 L.Ed.2d 929 ate.” Id. S.Ct. (internal aspects special fied with certain of child’s and alteration omit quotations ted). Instead, may request an administrative must set education matter, to process hearing a claim to due resolve “enough forth facts state by party aggrieved face.” and the the outcome of plausible relief that is on its Id. may file suit in 570, 127 hearing process state S.Ct. 1955. or federal court. Id. at 979-80. See also B. IDEA Claim (f) (i)(2)(A). 1415(b)(6), & 20 U.S.C. challenge first address C.N.’s We decided, Thompson was When IDEA claim against to the dismissal of her implementing the the Minnesota statute above, the District. As noted after trans hearings IDEA that provided such “shall public sys ferring to the Atwater and conducted in the be ‘initiated tem, requested an administrative assuring responsible school district District, hearing challenging ” provided.’ an appropriate program adequacy of the educational services added) (emphasis (quoting 144 F.3d at 578 ALJ, Like the provided the District. 3b(e)). 120.17, subd. former Minn.Stat. IDEA the district court concluded C.N.’s in Thompson, And we concluded that “[i]f claim failed under changes a student school districts and does request hearing because she did not process hearing, not his or challenge provided by the education right challenge prior educational leaving District until after the District. preserved.” services is not Id. at 579. ruling C.N. contends was error Rather, “[subsequent challenges to the changes recent because Minnesota law previous student’s education become moot Thompson have rendered invalid. dis We responsi because the new school district is agree. providing process hearing.” ble for a due M.P., 979-81; IDEA The seeks ensure that all Id. Accord 326 F.3d at Dist., 1, children receive a free 184 appropri Special disabled Smith Sch. No. Cir.1999). (FAPE) (8th public designed ate education to F.3d Under applicable meet their needs. 20 the version of the statute to this U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A). end, case, § process hearings To that the IDEA due are “conducted ” “provides money federal to state and local the state and “must be held in the agencies in responsible ensuring education order to assist them district for [a educating provided.” children on the handicapped FAPE] is Minn.Stat. 12(a) (2008) 125A.091, agencies (emphasis § condition that the states and local subd. added); implement procedural see M.M. v. the substantive also Sch. Dist. (8th 460 & Act.” M.P. n. 4 requirements Indep. No. 512 F.3d — Cir.2008), denied, U.S. -, Sch. Dist. No. cert. 129 Cir.2003). (2009). Substantively, example, Rely for 172 L.Ed.2d 343 S.Ct. develop ing Thompson applicable school districts must an IEP for on and the stat ute, each disabled student. Id. The IDEA also the district court concluded C.N.’s provides “procedural safeguards certain IDEA claim failed as a matter of law that an longer respon- assuring appropriate program no is the District was because a FAPE 125A.091, C.N. with providing provided”); sible for Minn.Stat. subd. hearing. 12(a) the requested when she (requiring hearing be held in the “responsible ensuring for district that a suggests appeal, On C.N. added).5 provided”) (emphases is [FAPE] longer good law after the Thompson is no C.N., however, request did not a due pro- Specifically, be- statutory amendment. hearing respon- cess while the District was hearings, the state now conducts all cause Rather, by sible for her education. it is immaterial whether a suggests C.N. a requested hearing against time C.N. requests process hearing a due student District, already Atwater had assumed re- district before or after particular sponsibility providing ap- for with an C.N. disagree. that district. We As leaving propriate geared education toward ad- recognized, the hear- court specific place dressing (including any to ensure that a her needs ing process is needs are be- arising “disabled child’s educational from deficiencies in prior education). the student’s school district.” ing met circumstances, Under these “all, purpose at 578. After ‘[t]he agree we with the district court that C.N.’s hearing requesting may IDEA claim but request fails she challenge aspect an of a child’s education if hearing against Atwater she believes her the school district on notice of put and to currently educational needs are not being the school dis- perceived problem. Once Thompson, met.6 F.3d at 580. We notice, opportunity trict receives it has the note, however, that C.N. indicated ” M.M., alleged problem.’ to address complaints regarding brief that she has no (quoting Thompson, her current educational situation. 579). the statute in effect F.3d at And like also she should al- contends be applicable at the time of claim, proceed lowed to with her IDEA principles these too re- statute reflects —it notwithstanding her failure to any hearing be held in the quires District, leaving before hearing be- currently responsible for the stu- cause an immediate transfer was neces- education. former MinmStat. dent’s See 3b(e) 120.17, sary physical psychological for her (requiring subd. the hear- responsible safety. ing suggests be held the “district Our case law otherwise.7 persuaded by 5. Nor are we C.N.’s related 7. C.N. also asserted a claim the Dis- argument regarding Minnesota Rule trict for a violation of her under Sec- 3525.4110. tion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. "The IDEA requirement applies exhaustion to claims suggests September 6. To the extent C.N. her brought under section 504 ... to the extent complaint provided 2006 to the MDE the Dis- that avail- those claims seek relief is also claim, adequate trict with notice of her we able under the IDEA.” M.Y. v. Sch. disagree. "The case law confirms state (8th Cir.2008) Dist. No. 544 F.3d 888 complaint procedures and federal other than 1415(Z)). § (citing dismissing U.S.C. After process hearing the IDEA due do not suffice claim, IDEA the district court also C.N.'s dis- purposes." Weberv. for exhaustion Cranston missed this claim “little more than [a] as Comm., (1 Cir.2000). Sch. st broadly rehash IDEA claim.” C.N. [of the] filing complaint satisfy Nor does the of such a that the court erred in asserts district dismiss- requires which that a student re- exhaust, ing claim for failure to but this limits quest process hearing a due before transfer- arguments remaining her to her constitution- ring delinquent if from the the student Thus, we affirm al claims. dismissal this preserve right her wishes to his or to chal- too, light claim of our resolution of C.N.'s lenge provided by the educational services arguments. Thompson that district. M.P., verbally munity allege In a student was harassed because C.N. failed to either assaulted his classmates Fourth Amendment or substantive due physically error, employee Finding disclosed his violation. no we after a district affirm. condition to school authori- mental health Although at his

ties. 326 F.3d 977-81. Appellees Individual repeated discussions parents engaged tried with school authorities and otherwise allegations We first consider the remedy to the “intolerable situation” he Appellees the individual Van Der means, through they informal did Heiden, Leedom, endured Smith and Simenson.9 process hearing not until Qualified immunity protects individual from removing after their son the delin- liability state actors from under quent district and we affirmed dismissal of they “clearly unless violate established Thompson. M.P.’s IDEA claim under Id. statutory or constitutional of which Applying prior precedents 979-81. our person reasonable would have known.” case, Sherwood, in this we are likewise bound to City Brockinton v. Cir.2007). affirm IDEA agree dismissal C.N.’s claim.8 Because we

with the district court that C.N. failed to C. Constitutional Claims allege a violation of her constitutional rights, Appel we conclude the individual challenges C.N. also the dismissal of her lees are qualified entitled to dismissal on U.S.C. 1983 claims Fourth and immunity grounds. Fourteenth Amendment violations. As appeal, relevant to this C.N. asserted vio- a. Fourth Amendment right lations of her Fourth Amendment Turning be free from unreasonable seizures and first to C.N.’s Fourth claim, right complaint alleges, Fourteenth Amendment to sub- Amendment essence, process. stantive due The district court that Van Der Heiden violated right dismissed those claims as to the District from be free unreasonable after concluding by seizing, failed to seizures restraining, secluding C.N., identify policy an unconstitutional confining Appel District and the other alleged injuries. custom that caused the lees stop failed to that conduct. The dis The court further concluded the individual trict court allege concluded C.N. failed to were entitled qualified defendants im- Fourth Amendment violation because concurring opinion suggests opinion 8. The establish- for the Court in Union Rail Pacific "equitable” exception ment of an Engineers, road Co. v. Brotherhood Locomotive court, opinion — rule. Our for the -, 584, 596, U.S. - only deals with the facts before us in L.Ed.2d - (2009), in the absence of a live litigation. According complaint, this to the ques issue there is "no warrant to answer a allegedly offending an teacher was education- may may consequential tion that [or not] be ally separated pupil from the almost two in another case.” parent months before saw fit to remove pupil private from the District into a representative 9. Carlson was named in his Then, removing pupil school. after from capacity only, against govern- and suit a "[a] District, parent waited ten months to capacity mental in official actor his is treated So, request process hearing. whether governmental entity as a suit it- equitable exception or not an to the rule can Sherwood, City v. self.” Brockinton 503 of validly given statutory be formulated man- 667, (8th Cir.2007). F.3d 674 We therefore clearly dates considered in there is below, resolve this claim in our discussion of reaching today. no case for such issue As C.N.’s 1983 claim the District. by Ginsburg noted Justice in her unanimous

633 Assuming use of restraints use of restraints and seclusion. IEP authorized the C.N.’s behavior and manage meaning was seized within the of the and seclusion thus, if actions amounted to even such Fourth Amendment when Van Der Heiden seizures, constitutionally un- they were not methods, agree we with employed those that appeal, C.N. contends reasonable. On any the district court that such seizures error, in because Van Der ruling was were not unreasonable. We have held (1) excessively used those methods Heiden professional’s an authorized treatment of a objec- alleged over J.N.’s punitively, and person disabled within the state’s care is the fact Ardhoff did not despite tions and if or her actions are “not a reasonable his (2) methods; and also ver- recommend departure accepted pro- substantial from bally physically and abused C.N. judgment, practice, or stan- fessional Rother, dards.” Heidemann v. 84 F.3d litigant may A state a Fourth (8th Cir.1996). 1021, Here, C.N.’s by alleging facts Amendment violation IEP of authorized the use restraints and occurred and that which indicate seizure agree seclusion and we with the district McCoy City v. it was unreasonable. See (8th court that the IEP “set the Monticello, 842, standard for 342 F.3d Cir. 2003). Moreover, accepted practice.” although And J.N. the Fourth Amend objected extend to actions contends she to the protections ment’s use those See, methods, public e.g., school officials. Couture hearing she did not Educ., 1243, 1250-52 Bd. challenge those methods while C.N. at- Cir.2008); City Farmington, Shade v. tended school the District. Because (8th Cir.2002). methods, IEP authorized such Van judged light is Reasonableness Der Heiden’s use of those and similar circumstances, however, totality of the desk, if thinking methods like the even “[cjontext McCoy, 342 F.3d at and and not overzealous times recommended critical to reasonableness anal [therefore] Ardhoff, depar- was not a substantial Couture, ysis.” 535 F.3d at 1251. And accepted judgment, practice ture from setting, Fourth Amend “[t]he and not unreasonable in the standards was ... inquiry ment’s reasonableness must Indeed, constitutional sense.10 as the and tute account for ‘the schools’ custodial observed, recently Tenth Circuit we would lary responsibility’ over the students en very place position educators difficult Shade, to their care.” 309 F.3d at trusted rely plan if we did not allow them “to on a (quoting Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J specifically approved by par- the student’s Acton, U.S. they statutorily ents and which are re- (1995)). 132 L.Ed.2d 564 Couture, quired to follow.” 535 F.3d at reasons, here, For these the district court

Applying principles those we con- correctly Der concluded Van Heiden’s use properly clude the district court dismissed procedures claim. of those did not violate C.N.’s C.N.’s Fourth Amendment We first allegations relating rights. consider C.N.’s to the Fourth Amendment omitted) (concluding argues Van Der tion school district offi- 10. C.N. also Heiden’s report procedures cials’ failure to a teacher’s use of those sometimes contra required by special abuse of students as a state child vened state education rules was disagree, reporting statute did not amount unconstitutional. We as abuse therefore Moreover, misconduct”). a claim “unconstitutional of state law do not state "[violations 1983,” "guards to the extent C.N. relies on facts not before under 42 U.S.C. which making arguments, Doe the district court in those vindicates federal alone.” v. Goo den, (8th Cir.2000) (quota- them. See ante at n. 4. we do not consider 634 presented, inspired by need and ... ig contends the district court so

C.N. also allegations concluding merely malice or sadism rather than a nored her abuse allege to a Fourth Amendment she failed careless or unwise excess of zeal that it violation, allegations those suggests and amounted brutal and inhumane abuse a claim for excessive force. This state power literally shocking of official to the analyzed alleg claims generally circuit has conscience. by public force school offi ing excessive (first Golden, at 652-53 alteration cials under the rubric of substantive due added) omitted). (quotation C.N. contends process, and not the Fourth so, pointing again she has done to her See, Gooden, e.g., 214

Amendment. Doe v. allegations physically that Van Der Heiden (8th Cir.2000) (noting F.3d verbally abused disabled children by a physical might abuse teacher amount care, in her and the other individual defen- to a constitutional violation if it was “liter stop dants failed to that conduct. conscience”); ally shocking to the see also Supreme As the has re Court (8th Anders, Golden v. 324 F.3d 650 Cir. reiterated, however, cently pleading “[a] Dist., 2003); Ridge v.Wise Pea Sch. [merely] that offers ‘labels and conclu Cir.1988); F.2d 564-65 accord ” “ sions’ or ‘naked assertion^]’ devoid Dist., Highlands Gottlieb Laurel Sch. ” ‘further factual enhancement’ does not (3d Cir.2001) (con plausibly establish entitlement to un relief cluding momentary use of force a — any theory. der v. Iqbal, teacher student “does not effect Ashcroft -, 1937, 1949, U.S. 129 S.Ct. a seizure of the student under the Fourth (2009) (third L.Ed.2d 868 alteration in collecting applying Amendment” and cases original) (quoting Twombly, at 550 U.S. the Fourteenth Amendment’s “shocks the 1955). 555, 557, 127 Judged against S.Ct. alleging conscience” standard to claims ex standards, officials) these does not by public cessive force omitted). (quotation process state viable substantive due Accordingly, we claim. agree allegations with the district court that C.N. Some abuse do allege identify failed to a Fourth Amendment not even C.N. as the victim of viola tion, rather, and the individual defendants are en the com- mistreatment — immunity titled to qualified plaint simply on this claim. unspecified asserts on Brockinton, See at 671-73. dates and under circumstances not de- scribed, allegedly Van Der Heiden mis- b. Fourteenth Amendment treated unidentified disabled children variety ways. vague We now turn to allegations whether C.N. Such adequately has pleaded provide Appellees a substantive due neither with fair no- so, process claim. allege To do C.N. must tice of the nature C.N.’s claims and the by government actions official which “vi grounds upon which those claims rest nor olated one or more fundamental constitu plausibly establish C.N.’s entitlement rights” “shocking tional and were any Twombly, relief. n. U.S. contemporary conscience.” 1955; Flowers v. see also id. at 565 n. City Minneapolis, 478 F.3d 873 10, 127 (disapproving S.Ct. 1955 of factual (8th Cir.2007) (internal omitted). quotation times, allegations which fail to mention standard, a high This is as places, persons specified involved events, noting [s]ubstantive due is concerned that a defendant seek- personal ing respond “eonclusory” with violations of ... allega- so to such 'disproportionate severe ... so to the tions “would have little idea where to be- claims, prej- without that are which were dismissed allegations those And even gin.”). gener- by than the district court. are little more udice specific to C.N. harm, lacking elaboration of

al assertions incidents or alleged of the COLLOTON, as to the context Judge, concurring. Circuit scope of sub- resulting injuries. “[T]he special was a education student at C.N. carefully circum- is due stantive in Elementary the Lincoln School the Will- Flowers, 875, scribed,” at and the kindergarten mar Public Schools from by established Federal pleading standard through grade. alleges the third She 8(a)(2) “demands Procedure Rule of Civil Lincoln special a education teacher unadorned, the-defendant- than an more physically school abused her and emotion- Iqbal, unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” time, ally during that and that the school vague allegations at 1949. The 129 S.Ct. deprived appropri- her of the free district complaint plausi- do not forth in C.N.’s set to which is enti- public ate education she claim for a violation of her bly state a with tled under Individuals Disabilities process rights, and substantive due (“IDEA”), Education Act 20 U.S.C. quali- are entitled individual defendants (i)(2)(A). 1415(b)(6), (f), § C.N. asserts claim as well. Broc- immunity on this fied left the Lincoln school in Novem- that she kinton, 503 F.3d at 671-73.11 abuse, and com- ber 2006 avoid further grade at a pleted the third Catholic 2. The District Atwater, Minnesota. in She enrolled challenges the dismissal also public for the the Atwater school district § District. 1983 claims of her “ In grade fourth the fall of 2007. Octo- 1983 action touchstone ‘[T]he 2007, with the ber C.N. filed body allegation is an against government Department alleg- of Education Minnesota for a de policy responsible that official ing that the Willmar school district denied by the rights protected Consti privation appropriate public education her free McVay Mercy v. tution ....’” Sisters of Lin- the IDEA while she attended under (8th 904, F.3d Cir. Sys., Health sought compensatory education coln. She 2005) (alterations original) (quoting Mo up services to make for the educational Servs., 658, Soc. 436 U.S. Dep’t nell suffered. deprivations allegedly she (1978)). 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 98 S.Ct. Missouri, 800 See Miener ex rel. Miener v. has not a violation of Because C.N. Cir.1986). (8th F.2d rights, it follows that the her constitutional 1983. ex rel. District cannot be liable under This court held id.; McCoy City Monti See see also Buckhanon v. Board School Cir.2005). (8th cello, No. District Cir.1998), student did not that Minnesota III. CONCLUSION a cause of action a school state reasons, failing pro- under the IDEA for we affirm the foregoing

For the education, appropriate public a free federal claims. C.N. vide dismissal of C.N.’s course, the student did not proceed with her state because may, of Supreme argu- Court's directive that a com- unsympathetic to C.N.’s 11. We are not plaint "enough to state a ability provide must contain facts her additional ments that plausible relief that is on its face.” allegations hampered claim to factual has been Twombly, 550 U.S. at problems and the fact she has communicative vague allegations far of that complete fall short provided access to the not been are, however, standard. We bound District's records. 636 1415(f) § under until after Sch. Dist. No. 512 F.3d

process hearing (8th Cir.2008). he left the district and enrolled another case, In an administrative law school. this that argues requirement the notice of Minnesota dismissed judge for the State Thompson of is created “out of whole claim under the IDEA based on C.N.’s cloth,” and that we should abandon it. It did not file her Thompson, because C.N. that the statute an true does not include until after she left Willmar and that a express requirement pro student in school at Atwater. The district enrolled district, vide notice to a school court dismissed claim under the process hearing, precondition due as a ground. IDEA on the same relief, obtaining equitable except case of for private reimbursement school changed Minnesota law has since placement. See U.S.C. provides and it now that a due 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii). Other courts have process hearing must conducted be recognized, equita because than State rather school district ble considerations relevant are to fashion which the student is enrolled. Minn.Stat. IDEA, ing relief under the see Sch. Comm. 125A.091, present Subd. Under the Mass., Burlington Dep’t v. Educ. of of of system, presumably the State has authori- 359, 374, 471 U.S. ty compensatory to order relief from a (1985), may L.Ed.2d 385 the courts also previ- school district which the student equitable preconditions establish to relief. ously was enrolled. Minn. R. See observed, example, The Second Circuit for 2(A)(3). 3525.4110, Subp. To the extent uniformly that “courts have held that reim that Thompson rested on the lack of au- parents bursement is barred where unilat thority for a new school district to order erally arrange private for educational ser district, relief from a former school notifying vices without ever the school likely superseded by rationale has been board of their dissatisfaction with their statute and rule. child’s IEP [individualized education C, plan].” M.C. ex rel. Mrs. observes, opinion correctly The court’s (2d Cir.2000); see also Town Bur however, that Thompson the rationale of of Mass., lington Dep’t Educ. denying for student’s claim his (1st Cir.1984) (recognizing former district was not so limited. Rath- reasonable distinction “between a unilater er, Thompson also reasoned that “[t]he parental al transfer made after consulta purpose requesting hear- system, tion with the yet school still an ing challenge aspect is to an of a child’s system’s action without agreement, put education and to the school district on truly unilaterally, and transfers made be perceived problem.” notice of a any reft of attempt negotiated to achieve a “[ojnce at 579. The court explained that compromise agreement”). Thompson notice, the school district receives it has applying is best understood as a similar opportunity alleged to address the equitable requires consideration that no problem.” though Id. Even a hearing offi- tice to the school district of an acting cer on behalf of the State of Minne- deficiency, and an opportunity to resolve may sota now authority have to order a problem, may before student obtain provide equitable former school district to relief under the IDEA. relief, 3525.4110, Subp. see Minn. R. 2(A)(3), Thompson the “notice” rationale C.N. contends that if this court adheres prevails. still M.M. L.R. judicially-created require- See ex rel. to the notice Thompson. The exception clude an should the court Thompson, then ment of how the in M.P. never considered when a student court exception an recognize requirement ap- in the notice should enrollment that continued shows physi- likely physical result in or serious likely ply would in cases M.P., to the harm 326 F.3d at or serious emotional emotional harm. See cal harm Congress, Although might that when the facts in M.P. She notes 980-81. student. school reimburse- private argument excep- an for an supported in the context have recognized ment, previously the point was not raised “codif[ied] tion to the court, or bar of a court to reduce by discretion the appellant the or resolved raise fail to parents where reimbursement not control- the decision is therefore timely in a Fall, of an IEP appropriateness question. See Webster v. ling on this 9, M.C., manner,” at 69 n. 507, 511, 69 L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. Notice is exceptions. (1925) also included merely statute lurk (“Questions which reimburse- private school required not record, brought in neither to the atten- prevented school public ment where upon, court nor ruled are not to tion of the notice, where parent providing from having so decided as be considered as been requirement notice compliance with the precedents.”). to constitute harm to the likely physical result “would sum, Thompson eq- In an while creates court, child,” or, in the discretion that a student must requirement uitable require- the notice compliance with where process hearing a due under the emo- likely result serious ment “would allegedly in the IDEA while still enrolled 20 U.S.C. harm to the child.” tional district, court has not offending school this 1412(a)(10)(C)(iv). argues that the an appropriateness considered the ex- subject rule should be Thompson equitable where ception requirement to the notice exceptions. to similar likely would result in continued enrollment record, court, on this agree I with the harm or serious emotional harm physical Thompson is warrant exception that no unlikely the child. It seems that Con- ed, facts that pleaded has not because C.N. in that contemplated that a student gress a reasonable inference plausibly support (1) equitable must either forfeit situation at the Willmar that continued enrollment the child is entitled remedies to which during the course of leaving offending under the IDEA likely to under the IDEA was hearing physical to avoid or serious emo- harm serious emotion physical result in or (2) harm, remain an abusive tional 8; ante, at n. v. al harm. See Ashcroft likely to result environment 1949- Iqbal, - U.S. -, harm in or- physical or serious emotional (2009); Corp. Bell Atl. 173 L.Ed.2d 868 equitable remedies. I pursue der to these 544, 555-57, 127 Twombly, 550 U.S. understanding pa- on the that the concur (2007). The 167 L.Ed.2d 929 S.Ct. Thompson rule in this rameters of the decision, only with deals court’s open remain for consideration. context action, ante, at n. of this the facts recognition does not foreclose judicially- exception to the equitable an appropriate rule on an

created in M.P. of facts. Nor does the decision

set Independent School District

ex rel. K. (8th Cir.2003), pre-

No.

Case Details

Case Name: C.N. Ex Rel. J.N. v. Willmar Public Schools, Independent School District No. 347

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 7, 2010

Citation: 591 F.3d 624

Docket Number: 08-3019

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.