N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JANINE ANGEL, on beh a lf of C .A., a nd individually , by

and through Gua

rdia n a d Lite m Dr. R ona ld Sa

va ge ; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C INDY M AR TEN, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s form e r Supe rinte nde nt; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 23-55625 D.C . No. 2:21-c v-07333-ODW -PVC
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 ay 16, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd M ENDOZA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd HINDER

AKER , *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
M AY29 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble John C ha

rle s Hinde rak e r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Ja

nine Ange l a

nd othe r pare nts of disa

ble d C a l ifornia

public sc hool students
a ppe a l the dism issa l of the ir suit a ga i nst C a lifornia Gove rnor Gavin Ne wsom , the C a lifornia De pa rtm e nt of Educ ation, se ve ra l C a lifornia sc hool distric ts, a

nd the
sc hool distric ts’ supe rinte nde nts. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm

the dism issa l of the suit without pre judic e on jurisdic tiona l grounds. To invokethe jurisdic tion of Artic le III c ourts, pla intiffs m ust show tha

t the i r a l le g e d injurie s a

re “ like ly to be re dre sse d by

[the ir] re que ste d re lie f.” Fe d. Ele c tion C

omm’n v

. C

ruz , 596 U.S. 289, 296 (2022). Pla i ntiffs m ust do this “ for
e a c h form of re lie f sought.” Uzue

gbunam v . Pre c

ze w s k i , 592 U.S. 279, 141 S. C t. 792, 801 (2021) (c le ane d u p ). “ [N] o fe de ra l c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to e nte r a judgm e nt unle s s it provide s a re m e dy tha t c an re dre ss the pla intiff’ s injury .” Id. Ange l ’ s se c ond a

m e nde d c om

pla int sought de c la

ratory re lie f, injunc tive re lie f, and
nom ina l da

m a ge s . 1 B e c a

use none of the se form s of re lie f satisfy the re quire m e nt of re d re ssa bility in this c a s e , the distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism isse d the suit for la c k of jurisdic tion. 2

1 To the e xte nt tha

t the c om pla int re q ue ste d othe r re l ie f, Ange l doe s not a rgue that it sa tisfie s the Artic le III re quire m e nt of re dre s sa bility , thus forfe i ting a

ny suc h argum e nt. Se e Mille r v . C ity of Sc ottsdale , 88 F.4th 800, 805 n.4 (9th C i r. 2023).
2 C ontra

ry to Ange l’ s a

rgum e nt, the distric t c ourt did not err by fa iling to a ddre s s Be ll v . Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), be c a use the distric t

c ourt’ s a na ly sis c onc e rne d re dre ssa

bility rathe r tha

n fe de ra l que stion jurisdiction. 2Ange l sought judgm e nts de c la ring tha t the de fe nda

nts viola te d the Individua ls with Disa

bilitie s Educ ation Ac t (IDEA), the Am e ric a ns with Disa bilitie s Ac t , Se c tion 504 of the R e ha bilita t ion Ac t, 42 U.S.C
. § 1983, a nd the C a lifornia Educ ation C ode
. Howe v e r, “ a de c la ratory judgm e nt m e re ly
a djudic ating pa st viola

t ions . . . is not a

n a ppropria te e xe rc ise of fe de ra l jurisdic tion.” Bay e r

v . N e iman Marc us Grp., Inc

. , 861 F.3d 853, 868 (9th C ir. 2017). Ange l a lso sought nom i na l da m a ge s for the a lle ge d IDEA viola tions. W e
a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t the c om pla int re que ste d nom ina l da m a ge s unde r the IDEA, not other sta

tutory a uthority , a s tha

t inte rpre tation is c onsiste nt with the
c om pla i nt’ s re que sts for othe r re lie f “ unde r” pa rtic ula r statute s. B e c a

use the IDEA doe s not provide

for the award of nom ina l da m a ge s, C .O. v . Portland Pub. Sc

hs. , 679 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th C ir. 2012), tha t re que st a lso offe rs no ba sis for the
c ourt’ s e x e rc ise of jurisdic tion. 3 B e c a use none of Ange l’ s re que ste d re lie f is
ava ila ble to re dre s s the pa st le ga l viola tions shea lle ge s, we a ffirm the distric t
c ourt’ s dismissa l of the c la im s c onc e rning a l le ge d pa st ha rm s.

3 W e note tha

t while“ the le ga l a

va ila bility of a c e rta i n kind of re lie f” is ge ne ra lly a m e rits que stion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC

v . Transform Holdc o LLC , 598 U.S. 288, 296 (2023) (quoting C hafin v

. C hafin , 568 U.S. 165, 174 (2013)), Ange l doe s not c ha lle nge the a pplic ation of C

. O. , whose holding make s it unne c e ssa

ry for us to “

plum b[] the . . . de pths” of the IDEA “ in the first insta nc e to a ssure ourse lve s tha

t . . . no re lie f re m a ins le g a lly ava ila b le , ” id. 3The distric t c ourt a lso la c ke d jurisdic tion to gra nt the prospe c tive re lie f Ange l re que ste d. A pla intiff se e king prospe c tive re lie f m ust pla u sibly a l le ge an ongoing injury

or a “ re a l or im

m e diate thre at” of ha

rm . May fie ld v . Unite d State

s , 599 F.3d 964, 970 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting C ity of Los Ange le

s v . Ly ons , 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)). If a thre at de rive s from re pe a le d , am e nde d , or e xpire d le gisla tion, the p la intiff m

ust ide ntify re a son “ founde d in there c ord” to c o nc l ude “ that the re is
a re a sona ble e xpe c tation of re e na c tm e nt.” Bd. of Trs. of Glazing He alth & W e lfare Tr. v . C hambe rs , 941 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th C ir. 2019) (e n ba nc ). Ange l ha s not ide ntifie d a

ny ba sis in the

re c ord to c onc lude tha

t sc hool c losure s a

re or we re im m ine nt, or to e xpe c t tha

t C a lifornia

will re e na c t its sc h ool c losure la w. Se e Brac h v . N

e w som , 38 F.4th 6, 14–15 (9th C ir. 2022) (e n ba n c ); Martine

z v . N e w som , 46 F.4th 965, 973 (9th C ir. 2022). Likew ise , Ange l ha s ide ntifie d no ba sis to c onc lude tha

t a ny pla intiff student fa c e d or now fa c e s a n im m ine nt thre at that c ould be re dre sse d by

a de c la ration of his or her “ the n-c urre nt e duc ationa l pla c e m e nt.” 20 U.S.C . § 1415(j). W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of the c la im s se e king prospe c tive re lie f. B e c a use the distric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic t ion ove r Ange l’ s fe de ra l la w
c la im s, it prope rly

dism isse d Ange l’ s sta

te la w c l a im
. Se e He rk

lotz v . Park

i nson , 848 F.3d 894, 898 (9th C ir. 2017); 28 U.S.C . § 1367(a).
4AFFIRM E D.

5