Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03537/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03537-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The HONORABLE ANN D. MONTGOMERY, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3537

___________

Mahesh Reinholdson, a minor, by his *

parent, Jan Simon, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

School Board of Independent School *

District No. 11, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

Filed: July 27, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mahesh Reinholdson by his parent, Jan Simon, appeals the district court’s1

denial of a compensatory education remedy under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Mahesh is a disabled student.

During the 2000-2001 school year, when Mahesh attended sixth grade at a middle

school in Independent School District No. 11 (the District), his parent rejected the

Appellate Case: 05-3537 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071734
-2-

District’s proposed individualized education plan. In February 2001, the District

requested a due process hearing. In March, the parent requested a hearing on other

issues, including whether the District had failed to develop a timely Extended School

Year (ESY) program. ESY services are special education services provided beyond

the normal school year to disabled children who need a continuous educational

experience in order to receive a free appropriate public education. See 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.309; Johnson v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 4, 921 F.2d 1022, 1030 (10th Cir. 1990).

The parties agree that Mahesh was then in need of ESY services.

The state independent hearing officer held a consolidated due process hearing

from May 8-16, 2001. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). On May 17, the District proposed an

ESY program. In a lengthy decision addressing a myriad of issues, the hearing officer

denied Mahesh’s request for ESY relief, concluding that the District always intended

to offer ESY services, Mahesh’s parent had not cooperated in discussing ESY issues,

34 C.F.R. § 300.309 does not prescribe the time in which the District must present an

ESY proposal, and it would be premature to consider whether the District’s posthearing proposal was appropriate. The state hearing review officer upheld this ruling.

See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g). Mahesh then commenced this action under 20 U.S.C.

§ 1415(i) seeking judicial review of many aspects of the administrative decision. The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the District. Mahesh appeals only

the denial of ESY relief. As he is no longer attending school in the District, only the

claim for a compensatory remedy is at issue.

On appeal, Mahesh argues that the District’s unreasonable delay in developing

an ESY program denied him a free appropriate public education. Noting that

Minnesota’s two-tier administrative hearing process takes 105 days to complete,

assuming no delays, Mahesh argues that 34 C.F.R. § 300.309 should be construed as

requiring the District to propose an ESY program at least 105 days before the end of

the school year. He also disagrees with the hearing officer’s assessment of why the

District’s 2000-2001 ESY proposal was delayed to May 17. We reject these

Appellate Case: 05-3537 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071734
-3-

contentions for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough Memorandum

Opinion and Order dated August 2, 2005. Mahesh further argues that the District’s

ESY policy is substantively flawed because it is limited to the consideration of only

two educational factors. Assuming this issue is not moot, it was neither

administratively exhausted nor raised in the district court and therefore is not properly

before us.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3537 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2006 Entry ID: 2071734