Sam v. Renton School District

Honorable John H. Chun

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE ELLIJAH SAM, No. 2:21-cv-01363-JHC 9 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 10 v. JUDGE RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s appeal from an administrative law judge’s decision. Dkt. ## 4 & 8. The Court has considered the parties’ briefing, Dkt. ## 72, 74, 75 & 76, as well as the administrative record from the underlying proceeding, Dkt. # 51. The Court’s decision is based solely on the administrative record developed below and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the Court AFFIRMS decision of the Administrative Law Judge and DISMISSES the appeal.

21 The Court further CONCLUDES as follows: 22 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415.

2. The ALJ’s decision was thorough and careful and warrants this Court’s deference under Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 1995) and Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1994). ] 3. Plaintiff does not challenge the majority of the issues the ALJ decided in the administrative due process decision and has waived these arguments on appeal. Cf Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, these aspects of the ALJ’s decision are not 4|| properly before this Court on appeal and not subject to reversal.

5 4. The sole issue Plaintiff raises with respect to the ALJ’s decision is that the ALJ 6|| failed to award Student an appropriate remedy as a result of the single IDEA procedural violation 7|| found. The award of remedies is subject to review for an abuse of discretion. Park vy. Anaheim 8|| Union High Sch. Dist., 464 F.3d 1025, 1033 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has failed to identify any 9|| abuse of discretion by the ALJ in resolving this issue. The ALJ’s remedy award is upheld.

10 5. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the District as well as unnamed 11] individual District staff. Plaintiff failed to name any individual defendants in this action.

12|| Monetary damages are also not appropriate or cognizable under the IDEA. Witte v. Clark Cty.

Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Payne v. 14] Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9™ Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs request for damages is denied.

15 6. Plaintiffs remaining claims for relief were not properly raised before the ALJ or before this Court and are denied.

17 7. All of Plaintiff's remaining arguments are rejected and the ALJ’s decision on review is upheld in its entirety.

19 DATED this 19th day of December, 2022.

20 ~ / ohn A] : Chur 71 JOHN H. CHUN 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE -2