# Prologue — Watson v. Kingston City School District

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0380%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2006
- **Citation:** 546 U.S. 1091

## Text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0380%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.