Ninth Circuit accepts California Supreme Court's determination that LAUSD must provide special education services for inmates whose parents reside in county.
Cite as
2014 DJDAR 1131Published
Jan. 29, 2014Filing Date
Jan. 28, 2014Summary
Michael Garcia was a student with learning deficiencies. Until he was 16, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) provided him with special education services. When Garcia was 16, he was arrested and placed in a juvenile facility. At 18, he was transferred to Los Angeles County Jail. The Disability Rights Legal Center sought a special hearing, arguing that individuals like Garcia were being denied their rights because the Los Angeles County Jail did not provide them with special education services. After reviewing the matter, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) ruled that the LAUSD was responsible for providing Garcia’s special education services while he was in jail. The district court upheld the decision. The Ninth Circuit then asked the California Supreme Court to determine who was responsible for paying the costs of special education services for incarcerated students with special education needs. The California Supreme Court answered that the cost should be borne by the school district where the student’s parents reside.
Affirmed. California is obligated to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children between the ages of 6 and 18. Education Code Section 56041 generally provides that, for qualifying pupils between 18 and 22, the school district where the pupil’s parents reside is responsible for providing special education services. Here, the California Supreme Court reasoned that Garcia was entitled to continue receiving a FAPE because he was under 22 and had not received a high school diploma. It further determined that Section 50641 assigned responsibility for providing special education services to the school district where Garcia’s parents resided. Because this court found the district court’s decision to make LAUSD responsible for providing Garcia’s special education services was consistent with the California Supreme Court’s answer, the district court’s decision was upheld by this court.
Per Curiam Opinion.
— Michael Leen
LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-55879
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-09289-VBF-CT
United States Court of Appeals
Ninth Circuit
Filed January 28, 2014
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank,
District Judge, Presiding
Argued December 9, 2011
Submitted January 28, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: Alex Kozinski,*
Chief Judge,
and
Barry G. Silverman
and
Kim McLane Wardlaw,
Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion
COUNSEL
Barrett K. Green (argued) and Daniel L. Gonzalez, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff- Appellant.
Paula D. Pearlman, Shawna L. Parks (argued), and Andrea F. Oxman, Disability Rights Legal Center, Los Angeles, California; Linda Dakin?Grimm, Daniel M. Perry, and Delilah Vinzon, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
When a student between the ages of 18 and 22 who is eligible for special education services in California is incarcerated in a county jail, who pays the cost of those services? The school district of the student?s parent?s residence? The county in which the jail is located? The State of California? To find out, we certified a question of California law---specifically, the interpretation of California Education Code section 56041---to the Supreme Court of California. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 669 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2012).
On December 12, 2013, the California Supreme Court gave its answer: The cost of the student?s education is borne by the school district where the student?s parent resides. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 58 Cal. 4th 175, --- P.3d ---, 2013 WL 6501267 (2013). The facts of the case are detailed in our order certifying the question to the California Supreme Court, 669 F.3d at 958?59, and in the California Supreme Court?s opinion, which is attached as an appendix to this opinion. The district court had affirmed a 2009 decision of the California Office of Administrative Hearings that the Los Angeles Unified School District was responsible for providing special education services to Michael Garcia. Because the district court?s ruling is consistent with California Supreme Court?s answer to the certified question, its judgment is AFFIRMED.
* On January 9, 2014, Chief Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace the late Judge B. Fletcher.
APPENDIX deleted
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424