Prologue — Watson v. Kingston City School District

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

05-5 30 0CT 24 2008

No. 05-

7 OFFICE OF THE Uve-...

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

BENJAMIN W., and his parent PEGGY W.,

Petitioner,

v.

~~ KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Respondent.

On PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Rosa Lee CHARPENTIER

FamiLy ADVOCATES, INC.

— 209 Clinton Avenue

Kingston, New York 12401

(845) 339-8080

Attorney for Petitioner

197408 ce

COUNSEL PRESS

(800) 274-3321 + (800) 359-6859

i

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Court of Appeais disregarded the

individualized, unique needs of Benjamin W., contrary to

20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. of the Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) in contradiction of this Court's

decision in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson

Central School District Bd. of Ed., Westchester County v.

Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982), (“Rowley”)

which decision, if not reversed, will foster ad hoc

encroachment upon the fundamental right to an appropriate

education, where:

1. The court “clow erred in holding that unmitigated

deference must be paid “to the [school] District” when

reviewing decisions regarding the educational needs of

disabled children; in granting such unprecedented expansion

to the required deference standard, the Court below has tacitly

and improperly reduced the requisite standard from a

“preponderance of the evidence” to “any evidence”.

2. The court below erred in affirming the District Court’s

decision to apply an expansive view of deference to the

second-tier administrative review officer, obviating the Act’s

requirement for an independent judicial decision of evidence

relevant to the questions posed by Rowley, an analysis of

which, demonstrates that Petitioner’s individualized, unique

educational needs could not have been met under the School

District’s unsupported educational plan;

il

3. The Court of Appeals improperly expanded the

deference requirement from that of sound educational policy

to virtually any position asserted during administrative

proceedings by any school district personnel. This case

continues a trend in the Second Circuit to expand deference

to areas well beyond that covered by traditional ruling-

making, policy and methodology, now deferring all questions

of student progress, segregation, educational benefit and least

restrictive environment. Deference is now granted without

any showing of educational expertise, scientific or peer-

reviewed opinions; deference is now granted to schoo! district

and even to state officials who lack educational training.

Moreover, the Second Circuit’s opinion is in increased

conflict with other Circuits, highlighting the need for

uniformity and interpretive assistance from this Court.

4. The court below erred in not finding that Respondent

failed to consider that Ben W., with reading skills at the

4".5" grade level, could not benefit from placement into 10"

grade, regular education, classes even with the use of

supplementary aids and services.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED .........ssscecess

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..cccccccccccsccces

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ___............

TABLE OF APPENDICES .......cccccvees

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...............

POROUS DELI ccc cccccvccccees

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

ee GEPUTEMIEE Kecedeeceeessedéeese

CEE .0b3 dc euektascuvnd¥uuweeees

iv

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases ’

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central

School District Bd. of Ed., Westchester County v.

Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982)

PV UTT TTT IT ETE rerrirr cer er passim

Board of Educ. v. Illinois Bd. of Educ., 41 F.3d 1162

ee GEE kev dae Piso eK eke renters cies 17

County Sch. Bd. v. R.P., 399 F.3d 298 (4" Cir.

PO SUE cbedtvcdeveteiuscesbucerees. 16

Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dis. v. Michael F.,

BOOT ee Bee CGM, BFE) ccc vccccnievness 16

DeVries v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 882 F.2d 876

fs Fe ae ry ey Per rer re 19

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Metropolitan Nashville Public

Schools, 133 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) ......... 16

Doyle v. Arlington County Sch. Bd., 953 F.2d 100

ls A. Pr ee Pre et ares Pe er ee 15

G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942

i a, | PARE ren pr mantnrar wri peer 15

Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307

Se BEE) eke v eke awe cse rds) si eee ers 18

Cited Authorities

Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341

tt; PD cneccavhusheseetetecsvinees

Kerkam v. McKenzie, 274 U.S. App. D.C. 139,

862 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ........ce cece:

Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir County Bd. of Educ., 216 F.3d

Pe cc ae ckh peeee chad eees

Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist.,

See Cee FSP CE Gale SUED cvcceeccuccecess

Kroot v. D. C., 800 F. Supp. 976, 981 (D.D.C.

Ss Vo dvenu) s vawenanuecelsevees piekeas

L.B. ex rel. K.B. v. Nebo Sch. Dist., 379 F.3d 966

to oft Serr rrr irre err Tr rr

Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083

in. con ebeae > se weweneteneanene

McLaughlin v. Holt Pub. Schs. Bd., 320 F.3d 663

Ss AE: aGcadeved bavi auteeseetenhes

Ms. S. ex rel. G v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d

2 ak RRR ap eet Cra eae

Murray v. Montrose County Sch. Dist. RE-1J, 51 F.3d

ge le ee roe

vi

Cited Authorities

Page

Ojai Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.

Ds utbceukasesendcewseetees eexeuen 18

Rafferty v. Cranston Public School, 315 F.3d 21

Ee ae SEED bees ccderdunekavecevedeeeet? 14

Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S.

ED pusdddeened te 0nesdtsiebeee teas 12

S.H. v. School Dist. of Newark, 336 F.3d 260

oe Ser err eo rye 15

Tucker v. Calloway County Bd. of Educ., 136 F.3d

ee a WE adv deeee cade ¥eswedecun ke 17

Union Sch., Dist. v. B. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9th Cir.

FPPC POPUP TT CTT TE CONTE TOT 18

United Gas Pipe Line v. Memphis L., G. & W. Div.,

358 U.S. 152. 79 S. Ct. 194 (1959) ........... 13

United Steelworkers of America v. N.L.R.B.,

376 U.S. 492, 84 S. Ct. 899 (1964) ...........

vil

Cited Authorities

Page

Statutes

20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. of the Individuals With

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)............ passim

Be CU BAn | POIRUEOMAD cccccccvecvecacveane 9

FO USL. § KIAMA) ccccccccevecvesvcess 12

ao U.S. & 5648S CATS) sc cwtccdocevceess 12

ae UBL. | SOTA GED . 0s cncnsececeseesans 9, 11

DOU En B PRCEELED va cvcvtaderssesteverent 10

FOU Bh. S POISED oc ccccveceaveevciuveveri 19

on UBL. § CERES cc vevescdusenetsececce 19

BO Ube G POSSE) cn cavoncceveesenceurin 6

ae Wak B OI Seee eee ccnciesevnvesneie 2

ae USA. § TOTS ct be ccccstveteseicaes l

ae USE, © EROGGD ievcwassdceavsenveukanveres ]

vil

Cited Authorities

Page

Regulations

ee Sete weed ecceceesecees 10, 13

Ec cknccncecoccvecececcess 12

34 C.F.R. Appendix A to Part 300

Cui na bedéwescvevveccenccss 11, 13

House of Representatives

HR Rep. No. 94-332, page 2 (1975) (HR Rep.) .... 8

ix

TABLE OF APPENDICES

Appendix A — Summary Order Of The United States

Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit Filed

PE Ete SEED vevervecaccunctvackébseeuens la

Appendix B — Memorandum-Decision And Order

Of The United States District Court For The

Northern District Of New York Dated July 14,

DEE étacnevsucédédbesevitianisaitieee Sa

Appendix C — Decision Of The University Of The

State Of New York Dated November 25, 2002 .. I7a

Appendix D — Hearing Officers Report Of The State

Of New York, County Of Ulster Dated March 6,

BOD were cesavdenwenesebancdetaeruteeess 34a

OPINIONS BELOW

The Second Circuit’s pane] decision (HON. DENNIS

JACOBS, HON. BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit

Judges. HON. JOHN GLEESON District Judge), which is

unpublished at 04- 4044, is reproduced in the appendix hereto

(App. A 1-4). The opinion of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of New York, (Hurd, D.), is

reproduced at (App. B 5-16). The opinion of the State Review

Officer (Frank Munoz), is reproduced at (App. C 17-33). The

opinion of the Impartial Hearing Officer (George

Kandalakis), is reproduced at (App. D 34-53).

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The District Court has jurisdiction under 20 U.S.C.

§ 1415(i)(3)(A). The judgment of the Court of Appeals was

entered on July 25, 2005. This Court has jurisdiction to issue

the writ under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

This is a case, as was Board of Education v. Rowley, 458

U.S 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982), of statutory interpretation.

The main issue is whether or not petitioners’ rights as a parent

and as a disabled child under the Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act' (hereafter IDEA) were properly construed.

J. Amended by Congress as the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act of 2004, same cite.

2

In particular, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2), reads as follows:

2) Right to bring civil action

(A) In general

Any party aggrieved by the findings and

decision made under subsection (f) or (k) of this

section who does not have the right to an appeal

under subsection (g) of this section, and any party

aggrieved by the findings and decision under this

subsection, shall have the right to bring a civil

action with respect to the complaint presented

pursuant to this section, which action may be

brought in any State court of competent

jurisdiction or in a district court of the United

States without regard to the amount in controversy.

(B) Additional requirements

In any action brought under this paragray

the court -

(i) shall receive the records of the

administrative proceedings;

(ii) shall hear additional evidence at the

request of a party; and

(iii) basing its decision on the

preponderance of the evidence, shall grant

such relief as the court determines is

appropriate.