Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01973/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01973-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1973

___________

West Platte R-II School District, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Judi Wilson, by and on behalf of *

her son, L.W., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2005

Filed: March 2, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

The West Platte R-II School District (District) appeals from the district court’s

decisions holding that the District violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA), granting a preliminary injunction, precluding the District from

supplementing the administrative record, and rejecting the District’s argument that the

members of the administrative panel (Panel) were biased. We affirm in part, reverse

in part, and remand.

Appellate Case: 05-1973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015824
1

While this case was pending before the district court, the Wilsons filed another

due process request, contending that L.W.’s March 2004 Individualized Education

Plan (IEP) failed to provide L.W. with a FAPE. A second administrative panel

convened in November 2004 to determine the issue. It ultimately rendered a decision

in favor of the District, concluding that the March 2004 IEP provided L.W. with a

FAPE. Because the Wilsons did not appeal this decision, it is not before us.

-2-

I.

The District assessed one of its students, L.W., as learning disabled and

determined that he was entitled to special education. It provided him with varying

levels of reading and math services for five years. When L.W. was in fifth grade (the

2002–03 school year), his parents, the Wilsons, requested that he be tutored using a

multisensory approach, but the District refused to provide a tutor. The Wilsons filed

a due process request, contending that L.W. did not receive a Free Appropriate Public

Education (FAPE), as required by the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq., during the

2001–02 and 2002–03 school years. 

A Panel convened to determine whether the District had provided L.W. with a

FAPE. Claiming partiality, the District moved to recuse Mr. Chackes as the Panel

Chair and Ms. Deck as a Panel member. Both motions were denied. The Panel

determined that the District had violated the IDEA’s procedural and substantive

guarantees. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel stated that the “burden of proving

compliance with the IDEA is on the school district.” Appellant’s App. at 46. The

District appealed the Panel’s decision to the district court.1

 The Wilsons moved for

a preliminary injunction, arguing that the District was required to implement the

Panel’s decision while the case was pending before the district court. The district

court granted this motion. The district court also granted the Wilsons’ motion for an

order precluding the submission of evidence outside the administrative record.

Appellate Case: 05-1973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015824
-3-

On January 28, 2005, the district court affirmed the Panel’s decision in most

respects, concluding that the District violated the IDEA’s procedural and substantive

requirements and that the Panel did not err in denying the District’s motions to recuse

Chackes and Deck. In reaching these conclusions, the district court accorded due

deference to the Panel’s decision. Based on its findings, the district court ordered

compensatory and prospective relief.

The District appeals from the district court’s judgments, arguing that it had

complied with the IDEA’s requirements, that the district court erred in granting the

preliminary injunction, that the district court erred in precluding the District from

supplementing the administrative record, and that the Panel erred in denying the

District’s motions to recuse.

II.

We reverse and remand the district court’s judgment upholding the Panel’s

decision that the District violated the IDEA’s procedural and substantive

requirements, because the Panel and the district court assigned the burden of proof to

the wrong party. In Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, the Supreme Court held that

the burden of proof in an IDEA case lies with the party initiating the challenge to the

Individualized Education Plan (IEP). See 126 S. Ct. 528, 537 (2005). Here, the

Wilsons initiated the challenge to the IEP, but the Panel assigned the burden of proof

to the District. The district court accorded due deference to the Panel’s findings and

concluded that a preponderance of the evidence supported the Panel’s decision.

Placing the burden of proof on the incorrect party is reversible error. Boles

Trucking, Inc. v. United States, 77 F.3d 236, 241 (8th Cir. 1996); Voigt v. Chi. &

Northwestern Ry. Co., 380 F.2d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 1967). Unless the error relates

to an immaterial issue, we must reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the

case for further proceedings. Voigt, 380 F.2d at 1004. This error was prejudicial to

Appellate Case: 05-1973 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015824
-4-

the District in this case. Many of the factual issues were very close and might well

have been determined differently if the Panel had placed the burden of proof on the

Wilsons. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand to the

district court with instructions to remand this case to the Panel for further proceedings.

III.

The District argues that the district court erred in issuing the preliminary

injunction, in disallowing additional evidence, and in failing to declare the Panel as

biased. On the matters that are properly before this court, we disagree.

When a district court rules on the issue of a preliminary injunction and later

grants permanent relief, the preliminary injunction ruling becomes moot. See Roberts

v. Norris, 415 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2005); Knuckles v. Bolger, 654 F.2d 25, 27 n.2

(8th Cir. 1981); Hankins v. Temple Univ., 829 F.2d 437, 438 n.1 (3d Cir. 1987); La.

World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033, 1038 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly,

the issue of whether the district court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction is

moot.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to preclude the

District from supplementing the administrative record. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v.

S.D. ex rel. J.D., 88 F.3d 556, 561 (8th Cir. 1996). The IDEA permits a reviewing

court to admit additional evidence to supplement the record if a party has a solid

justification for doing so. Id. at 560. Rendering a decision on the record compiled

before the administrative agency, however, is the norm. Id. The additional evidence

that the District attempted to provide related to the progress and status of L.W.

subsequent to the administrative hearing. The district court concluded that the District

failed to provide a solid justification for supplementing the administrative record.

Considering the vast and detailed administrative record that was compiled, together

with the fact that we normally determine these issues based solely on the

Appellate Case: 05-1973 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015824
-5-

administrative record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying the District’s request to supplement the record.

We review for clear error the district court’s determination that Panel members

Chackes and Deck were impartial. See Blackmon ex rel. Blackmon v. Springfield RXII Sch. Dist., 198 F.3d 648, 655 (8th Cir. 1999). We find the District’s arguments

to the contrary unpersuasive, and we affirm the district court’s judgment on this

matter. 

We reverse the district court’s judgment that the District violated the IDEA’s

requirements, and we remand the case to the district court with directions to remand

the case to the Panel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm

the district court’s judgment precluding the District from supplementing the

administrative record, as well as the district court’s judgment that the Panel did not

err in refusing to recuse Panel members Chackes and Deck. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1973 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/02/2006 Entry ID: 2015824