N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT A. G., a m inor by and through his pa

re nt and gua rdia n a d lite m C .G., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. PASO R OB LES JOINT UNIFIED SC HOOL DISTRIC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-56516 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-08814-ODW
C W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 6, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE, B EA, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
MAR 12 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).A.G., a m i nor with le arning a

nd de ve lopm e nta l disa

b ilitie s a nd be haviora l proble m s, 1 and his pa

re nts (c um

ulative ly , A.G.) file d

this a c t ion c ha lle nging the
e duc ation progra

m s tha t the Pa so R oble s Joint Unifie d Sc hool Distric t (sc hool distric t) offe re d to A.G. Affirming a n a dm inistra

t ive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de c ision, the d istric t c o urt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of the sc hool distric t. A.G.
a ppe a ls, a rguing tha

t the sc hool distric t de nie d him a Fa ir a nd Appropria

te Public Educ ation (FAPE). Our re vie w is de novo, M.L. v . Fe d. W ay Sc h. Dist. , 394 F.3d 634, 642 (9th C ir. 2005), a nd we a ffirm
. 2 The Individua ls with Disa bilitie s Educ ation Ac t (IDEA) a nd C a lifornia

la w provide tha

t disa ble d stude nts sha ll re c e ive a FAPE through Individua liz e d Educ ation Progra

m s (IEP). 20 U.S.C . §§ 1400(d)(1)(A), 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I-IV); C a l. Educ . C ode § 56000(a ). Unde r the IDEA, a FAPE is gua rante e d, in pa

rt, by
c e rta in proc e dura l sa fe g ua rds for the disa

ble d c h ild a

nd his pa re nts. 20 U.S.C
. § 1415(a ). Howe ve r, “ [p] roc e d ura l fla ws in theIEP proc e ss do not alwa y s a m ount to the de nia l of a

FAPE.” L.M. v . C

apistrano Unifie

d Sc h. Dist. , 556 F.3d 900, 909 (9th C ir. 2009). R at

h e r, onc e a

c ourt finds a

proc e dura l viola

tion of theIDEA, it

1 In M arc h

2011, A.G. wa s dia gnose d with a utism
. 2 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 2“ m

ust de te rm ine whe the r that viola tion a ffe c t e d the substa

ntive rights of thepa

re nt
or c hild.” Id. First, A.G. a

rgue s tha t the June 2010 IEP m e e ting did not provide him a FAPE be c a

use a ge ne ra l e d

uc at ion te a c he r did not a

tte nd the m e e ting. W e a gre e that a

ge ne ra l e duc ation te a c he r should ha v e atte nde d the m e e ting be c a use “ ‘ IEP Te am ’ m e ans a group of individua

ls” tha t inc l ude s “ n ot le ss tha

n 1
re gula r e duc ation te a c he r of suc h c hild (if thec hild is, or ma y be , pa rtic ipating in the re gula r e d uc ation e nvironm e nt).” 20 U.S.C . § 1414(d)(B )(ii). Ne v e rthe le ss, this e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be c a

use the proc e dura l viola

tion did not “

re sult [ ] in the loss of a n e duc ationa l opportunity , se riously infringe [ ] the pa

re n ts’ opportunity

to pa rtic i pate in the IEP form

ulation proc e ss or c a

use a de priva tion of e duc ationa l be ne fits.” J

.L. v . Me rc e r Island Sc h. Dist. , 592 F.3d 938, 953 (9th C i r. 2009). Ne xt, A.G. a

rgue s tha t the sc hool distric t de n ie d him a FAPE be c a

use it did not c om ply with se c tions 3001 a

nd 3052 of Title

5 of the C a lifornia

C ode of R e gula tions, whic h re quire loc a l e duc ation a ge nc i e s to c onduc t an func tiona l
ana ly sis a sse ssm e nt (FAA) a n d provide a be havior inte rve ntion pla n (B IP). W e disa gre e .

3A.G.’ s c la im fa ils be c a

use the FAA a

n d B IP re quire m e nts a

pply only to stude nts with se v e re be havior proble m s. B e fore July 1, 2013, 3 C a l. C ode R e gs. tit. 5 §§ 3001(a

b) & (g), 3052(b), de fine d a se rious be h avior proble m a s a pe rva sive be havior tha

t is “ se lf-injurious, a ssa

ultive , or se riously

dam a ging” to prope rty

tha t the s tude n t’ s IEP ha s prove n ine ffe c tive in tre ating. He re , A.G. doe s not ha ve a se rious be havior proble m be c a use he doe s not se riously

dam a ge prope rty , an d,
m ore im porta ntly , he doe s not posea

thre at to him se lf or the sa fe ty of othe rs. 4 Furthe rm ore , A.G.’ s IEPs we re e ffe c tive be c a use he m a de progre ss towa rd his goa ls. Ac c ordingly , the sc hool distric t did not deny A.G. a FAPE by not
c onduc ting a

n FAA or de ve loping a

B IP. La st, A.G. c onte nds tha

t his pa re nts a nd the IEP te am

ha d no wa

y of
m e a suring his progre ss or de te rm ining whe the r he re c e ive d a FAPE be c a

use the
sc hool distric t did not identify a m e a sura ble ba se line of his a

b ilitie s. For e xam

ple ,

3 Asse m b ly B ill 86, whic h we nt into e ffe c t on July 1, 2013, repe a le d the FAA and B IP re q

uire m e nts. S

e e Asse m . B ill 86, 2013-2014 R e g . Se ss. (C a l. 2013); C a l. Educ . C ode § 56523(a ). Howe v e r, the re le v ant c onduc t he re oc c urre d prior to July

1, 2013, whe n the FAA a nd B IP re quire m e nts re m a ine d in e ffe c t. 4 W e a c knowle dge the se riousne ss of the April 2010 suic ide atte m pt inc i de nt, e ve n though A.G.’ s m othe r de sc ribe d it a s a “ m i sunde rsta nding.” Ne ve rthe le ss, be c a

use this wa s a

single oc c urre nc e , it is not evide n c e of a pe rva sive be havior issue . Furthe r, the inc ide n t wa s not a se rious be h avior proble m unde r C a lifornia la w be c a use the re is no e vide nc e tha t A.G.’ s IEPs c ould not e ffe c tive ly re m e dy the situa

tion. 4one IEP sta

te d tha t A.G. ha s “ som e diffic ulty form ing a ge a

ppropria te se nte nc e s,”
and a nothe r IEP state d tha

t A.G. “ ofte n” shoute d out off-topic answe rs without
wa iting for thete a c h e r to c a ll on him , but ne i the r IEP de fine d “ som e ” or “ ofte n.” Although the IDEA re q

uire s “ a sta t e m e nt of m e a sura

ble annua l goa ls,” 20 U.S.C . § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II), it doe s not re quire s a sta te m e n t of qua

ntifia ble ba se line s. R athe r, the IDEA re quire s ba se line s to c onta in “ a sta te m e nt of the
c hild’ s pre se nt le ve ls of a c a d e m ic a c hie ve m e nt a n d func tiona l pe rform anc e .” Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I). B e c a use A.G. ha s not de m onstra te d that the sta

t e m e nts of his ba se line a c h ie ve m e nt a

nd pe rform anc e le ve ls we re ina c c urate , he ha s not c arrie d his burde n to de m onstra

te tha t the sc hool distric t de nie d him a FAPE. AFFIRM E D.

5