Martinez v. Newsom
| Decision Date | 24 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-56404 |
| Citation | 46 F.4th 965 |
| Parties | Danielle Howard MARTINEZ; D. P., a minor, by his Guardian ad Litem Erica Wedlow; K. P., a minor, by his Guardian ad Litem Brittany Williams; T. W., a minor by his Guardian ad Litem Dahl Johnson; P. C., a minor by her Guardian ad Litem Raven Campbell; Lashonda Hubbard; Amber Wood, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gavin NEWSOM, Governor; State of California; California State Board of Education ; California Department of Public Health ; California Health and Human Services ; Sandra Shewry, State Public Health Officer and Department of Public Health Director; California Department of Education; Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Education; California School for the Deaf, Fremont and Riverside; California School for the Blind Diagnostic Center, Northern California, Central California Southern California; Fremont Unified School District ; Oakland Unified School District; Mt. Diablo Unified School District ; San Ramon Valley Unified School District; West Contra Costa Unified School District; Cupertino Union School District; Hayward Unified School District ; San Juan Unified School District ; SBE Latitude 37.8 High School; Long Beach Unified School District ; South Pasadena Unified School District; Capistrano Unified School District ; Santa Ana Unified School District ; Riverside Unified School District ; Chaffey Joint Union High School District; Milpitas Unified School District ; Garden Grove Unified School District; Irvine Unified School District ; Corona-Norco Unified School District ; Moreno Valley Unified School District; Etiwanda Elementary School District; San Bernardino City Unified School District ; San Francisco Unified School District; Los Angeles Unified School District; San Jose Unified School District ; SBC - High Tech High School District, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Maxwell V. Pritt (argued) and Erica Nyborg-Burch (argued), Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, California; Diana Renteria, Law Offices of Sheila C. Bayne, Newport Beach, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Len Garfinkel (argued), Deputy General Counsel; Amy Bisson Holloway, General Counsel; California Department of Education, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees California Department of Education, Tony Thurmond, California School for the Deaf, and California School for the Blind Diagnostic Center.
S. Daniel Harbottle (argued), Sydney J. Blaauw, and Tracy Petznick Johnson, Harbottle Law Group, Irvine, California, for Defendants-Appellees Corona-Norco Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, Irvine Unified School District, and Moreno Valley Unified School District.
Marlon C. Wadlington (argued), Scott D. Danforth, and Kristin M. Meyers, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Roma, Cerritos, California, for Defendants-Appellees Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Capistrano Unified School District, Long Beach Unified School District, Riverside Unified School District, Santa Ana Unified School District, South Pasadena Unified School District, and Milpitas Unified School District.
Kirin K. Gill, Deputy Attorney General, Rob Bonta, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees Gavin Newsom, State of California, California State Board of Education, California Department of Public Health, California Health and Human Services, and Sandra Shewry.
Seth Gordon and Louis Leone, Leone Alberts & Duus APC, Concord, California, for Defendants-Appellants Fremont Unified School District, Oakland Unified School District, Mt. Diablo Unified School District, San Ramon Valley Unified School District, West Contra Costa Unified School District, and Cupertino Union School District.
Lynn A. Garcia and Domenic D. Spinelli, Spinelli Donald & Nott, Sacramento, California, for Defendants-Appellees Hayward Unified School District and San Juan Unified School District.
Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, California, for SBE Latitude 37.8 High School.
Edward Kang and Thomas Madruga, Olivarez Madruga Law Organization LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees Etiwanda Elementary School District and San Bernardino City Unified School District.
Mark Saul Posard, Gordon Rees LLP, San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellee San Francisco Unified School District.
Sue Ann Evans, Managing Senior Counsel, Dannis Woliver Kelley, Long Beach, California, for Defendants-Appellees Los Angeles Unified School District and San Jose Unified School District
Kevin S. Wattles, Soltman Levitt Flaherty & Wattles LLP, Thousand Oaks, California, for Defendant-Appellee SBC - High Tech High School District.
Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR., KENNETH K. LEE, and DANIELLE J. FORREST, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. ;
A group of students and parents allege that every school district in California failed to adequately accommodate special needs students after California public schools transitioned to remote instruction in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To address appellants' claims, we examine whether Plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. , before filing their lawsuit. We hold that exhaustion was required.
Plaintiffs are four students enrolled in the Etiwanda and Chaffey Joint Union High School Districts as well as their parents. They allege that when California public schools transitioned to remote instruction in March 2020, every school district in the state failed to determine "what changes needed to be made to [special needs students'] individualized education programs (‘IEP’) to account for the differences in distance learning compared to in-person instruction." They allege that their IEPs were not updated to account for remote instruction, they were not offered sufficient accommodations after the transition, and they were denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) during the time they were receiving remote instruction.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of "all special needs students and their parents in California." They sued hundreds of defendants, including, but not limited to: (1) the California Department of Education (CDE); (2) California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond; (3) every school district in the state of California; and (4) the California School for the Deaf, the California School for the Blind, and the Diagnostic Centers of California (the State Special Schools).1
Plaintiffs' claims against the school districts are straightforward: they allege that the districts failed to adequately accommodate special needs students after the transition to remote instruction, thereby denying them—and every other special needs student in the state—a FAPE. Plaintiffs' claims against the CDE and Superintendent Thurmond are more complicated. During the transition to remote instruction, the CDE issued guidance that encouraged the school districts to "[w]ork with each family ... to determine what [a] FAPE looks like ... during COVID-19," "[e]nsure children with disabilities are included in all offerings of school education models by using the IEP process," and "[u]se [the] annual IEP to plan for [a] traditional school year and while not required, it is suggested LEAs include distance learning plans or addendums to address distance learning needs during immediate or future school site closures." Plaintiffs allege that because this guidance "encouraged, but did not require, the state's school districts" to take these measures, the CDE and Superintendent Thurmond either dissuaded or prohibited school districts from updating special needs students' IEPs and from offering adequate accommodations. At oral argument, Plaintiffs characterized this guidance as "a policy of inaction" and "a blanket decision not to act."
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the IDEA and the Fourteenth Amendment, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief.2 Specifically, Plaintiffs request (1) a declaration that Defendants violated the IDEA, (2) an injunction requiring them "to immediately reassess ... special needs students assigned to engage in distance learning" or return them to in-person instruction, and (3) an injunction ordering them to provide special needs students with various educational services "until such time as appropriate accommodations are made ... or they are returned to in-person instruction." Plaintiffs also request "compensatory education" from the school districts to make up "for [special needs students'] loss of a basic minimum education."
After some Defendants moved to dismiss, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against all Defendants for failure to exhaust, denied Plaintiffs leave to amend, and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review de novo whether the IDEA requires exhaustion in these circumstances. Doe ex rel. Brockhuis v. Ariz. Dep't of Educ. , 111 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1997).
Before analyzing exhaustion, we first address two jurisdictional issues.3 See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki , 562 U.S. 428, 434, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). First, Plaintiffs sued hundreds of school districts in which they are not enrolled, and the State Special Schools, which they do not attend, without alleging that those defendants harmed them personally. Accordingly, we consider whether Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims against these defendants in federal court. Second, California public schools have returned to in-person instruction since Plaintiffs filed their complaint, providing Plaintiffs with much of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- P & P Imports LLC v. Johnson Enters., LLC
-
Simmons v. Pritzker
... ... structured as a class action seeking injunctive ... relief.” Martinez , 46 F.4th at 974 (citation ... and quotations omitted). Plaintiffs haven't offered ... evidence that an administrative officer would be ... on-the “systemic violation” exception-“is ... something of an enigma,” Martinez v. Newsom , ... 46 F. 4th 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2022), and hasn't been ... recognized by the Seventh Circuit. Though at least three ... circuits ... ...
-
J.B. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist.
...even if the plaintiff asserts claims arising under the Constitution or a federal statute other than the IDEA.” Martinez v. Newsom, 46 F.4th 965, 973 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A), 1415(1) and Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. at 165). The exhaustion requirement “allow......
-
A.L. v. Pleasanton Unified Sch. Dist.
...II) represent separate causes of action under the IDEA at all, though they are styled as such in the Complaint. Cf. Martinez v. Newsom, 46 F.4th 965, 973 (9th Cir. 2022); A. A. P. v. Sierra Plumas Joint Unified Sch. Dist., 19-cv-882, 2021 WL 847812, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021). [5] PUSD'......