N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DEB R A LEGRIS; AVIANA LEGRIS, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C APISTR

ANO UNIFIED SC HOOL DISTR IC T, a

loc a l e duc ationa l a g e nc y , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 20-56261 D.C . No. 8:19-c v-00837-DOC -ADS
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 Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , C HR ISTEN, a

nd OW ENS, C i rc uit Judge s. Avia na Le gris a n d he r m othe r, De b ra

Le g ris, a p pe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the a dm inistra

tive la w judge ’ s (ALJ) de c ision tha t Avia na did not qualify for spe c ia l-e duc ation se rvic e s during high school pursua nt to theIndividua ls with Disa bilitie s Educ ation Ac t (IDEA), 20 U.S.C
. § 1400 e t se q . The Le grise s a lso 

# F IL ED OCT 18 2021 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.a

ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s c onc lusion tha t C a pistra n o did not viola

te its C hild Find obliga tion or IDEA’ s proc e d

ura l re quire m e nts. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s c o nc lusions of la w a nd its findings of fa c t for c le ar e rror. L.J

. v . Pittsburg Unifie

d Sc h. Dist. , 850 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th C ir. 2017). W e a fford “ due we ight” to sta te a dm inistra

tive proc e e d ings, Van Duy n e x re l. Van Duyn v . Bak

e r Sc h. Dist. 5J

, 502 F.3d 811, 817 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting Bd. of Educ . of He ndric k

Hudson C

e nt. Sc h
. Dist. v . Row le

y , 458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982)), with pa

rtic ula r de fe re nc e to a

n ALJ’ s a dm inistra

tive findings when

“ the y are t horough a

n d c a re ful,” Union Sc h. Dist. v . Smith , 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 (9th C ir. 1994). 1. The Le grise s a rgue the distric t c ourt im

pe rm issibly

de fe rre d to the ALJ’ s de c ision. A district c ourt re v ie wing a n IDEA due proc e ss he aring give s

“ le ss de fe re nc e tha

n is c onve ntiona l in re vie w of othe r a ge n c y a c tions.” J

.W . e x re l. J .E.W . v . Fre sno Unified Sc h. Dist. , 626 F.3d 431, 438 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Ojai Unified Sc h. Dist. v . J ac k s on , 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th C ir. 1993)). B ut de fe re nc e to the ALJ’ s findings is due whe re the findings a

re “ thorough a

nd
c are ful.” C

apistrano Unifie

d Sc h. Dist. v . W

arte n be rg , 59 F.3d 884, 891 (9th C ir. 1995) (quoting Union , 15 F.3d a t 1524). W e de e m

the ALJ’ s findings “thorough
2and c are ful whe n the offic e r partic ipate s in theque stioning of witne sse s a nd write s a de c ision c onta i ning a

c om ple te fa c tua l ba c kground a s we ll a s a disc re te ana ly sis supporting the

ultim ate c onc lusions.” R.B., e x re l. F.B. v . N

apa Valle y Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 496 F.3d 932, 942 (9th C ir. 2007) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d) (quoting Park

, e x re l. Park

v . Anahe i m Union High Sch. Dist. , 464 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th C ir. 2006)). H e re , the ALJ’ s de c ision wa s “ thorough a nd c are ful” ; it inc lude d

“ a de ta ile d fa c tua l ba c k ground a nd a na ly sis” and the ALJ “ e xpla in[e d] he r le ga l
c onc lusions thoroughly .” Se e J .W
. , 626 F.3d a

t 441. And a s the distric t c ourt found, the he a

ring tra nsc ripts re fle c t the ALJ’ s a c tive involve m e nt a t the he a ring. Se e id. The Le grise s furthe r c onte nd tha t “ [t] h e ALJ dra stic a lly

m issta te d the issue for the he aring.” Although the ALJ did not addre ss whe the r C a pistra n o viola te d IDEA’ s proc e dura l re quire m e nts, thedistric t c ourt did. The ALJ’ s

“ re orga niz ation” of the issue wa s “ inc o nse q ue ntia l to the Stude nt,” and the re is no
re ve rsible e rror. J

.W
. , 626 F.3d a

t 442–43. 2. The Le grise s a lso a rgue the distric t c ourt did not a fford Dr. Ste phe y ’ s te stim ony “ substa ntia l de fe re nc e unde r the tre ating phy s ic ia n rule ” and tha

t the ALJ’ s c re dibility

finding wa s fla

we d. The Ninth C irc u it ha s a pplie d the “ t

re ating phy sic ia n rule ” in Soc ia l Se c urity a ppe a ls. Se e

, e .g. , Leste r

v . C hate r , 81 F.3d 821,
3830

– 33 (9th C ir. 1995). B ut the Le grise s offe r no a uthority for the proposition tha

t
we a pply the rule to IDEA c ha l le nge s, a nd we are aware of none . Eve n if we
a pplie d the rule he re , the ALJ c are fully c onside re d Dr. Ste p he y ’ s opinion a nd ga ve c le ar an d c onvinc ing re a s ons for disa gre e i ng with it. M ore ove r, the ALJ ba se d he r c re d ibility

finding on Dr. Ste

phe y ’ s live te stim ony

and de m e anor, a

nd he r finding
wa s supporte d

by the we ight of othe r e vide nc e que stioning Dr. Ste phe y ’ s c onc lusions. Se e Amanda J
. e x re l. Anne tte J

. v . C l ark C nty . Sc h . Dist. , 267 F.3d 877, 893 (9th C ir. 2001) (holding tha t we give “ due we ight” to a n ALJ’ s c re dibility findings “ so long a s the y

are supporte d by

the re c o rd” ). The distric t c o urt pe rm issibly

de fe rre d to the ALJ’ s c re dibility finding. 3. Ne xt, the Le grise s c onte nd tha t C a pistra no viola te d its C h ild Find obliga tion a nd IDEA’ s proc e dura l re quire m e nts. “ C hild Find”e n c a p sula te s a sc hool distric t’ s duty to a sse ss whe the r a c hild is e l igible for spe c ia l e duc ation onc e the s c hool distric t

is on notic e of a

suspe c te d disa

bility
. S e e , e .g. , Timothy

O. v
. Paso Roble

s Unifie d Sc h . Dist. , 822 F.3d 1105, 1119

– 20 (9th C ir. 2016); se e also 20 U.S.C . § 1412(a )(3)(A); C a l. Educ . C ode § 56301 (inc orporating C hild Find into C a lifornia la

w ). A sc hool distric t m

ust follow va

rious IDEA proc e dura l
re quire m e nts whe n a sse ssing a c hild’ s spe c ia l-e d

uc ation e ligibility , se e

, e .g. , 20

4U.S.C . § 1414(b)(2), but “ a proc e dura l viola tion c a nnot qua lify

an othe rwise ine l igible stude nt for IDEA re l ie f,” R.B. , 496 F.3d a t 942. The Le grise s first a

rgue C a pistra no did not a c t on notic e of “ Avia na ’ s visua l diffic u ltie s a

nd the ir se ve re im

pa c t on he r a

bility to re a d .” B ut the re c o rd la c ks the kind of wa

rning signs tha

t would trigger C a

pistra no’ s obliga

tion to a sse ss Avia

na for an IEP be fore August 2017. The distric t c ourt found tha

t C a pistra no

“ c o nduc te d a

thorough a

n d m ulti-disc iplina

ry a sse ssm e n t to a ddre ss Avia na ’ s ADHD” ba se d on he r pare nt’ s re que st be fore she tra nsfe rre d to a

C a pistra no sc hool for he r junior y e ar. The c ourt c onc lude d tha t C a pistra no “ re a sona

bly provide d Avia na with a Se c tion 504 pla

n to a d dre ss he r dia gnose d ADHD” and wa s not put on notic e of a

“ suspe c te d disa

bility .” The re c ord supports this finding. The Le grise s a lso a

rgue that C a

pistra no viola te d IDEA whe n it a sse sse d Avia na for an IEP in he r se nior y e ar be c a use it fa ile d to a s se ss he r “ in the are a of de ve lopm e nta l vision.”IDEA re quire s a sc hool distric t

to “ use a va

rie ty of
a sse ssm e nt tools a

nd stra te gie s to ga

the r re le va

nt . . . inform ation,” 20 U.S.C
. § 1414(b)(2)(A), a

nd to “ re vie we xisting e v a luation da ta on the c hild, inc l uding . . . c urre nt c la ssroom -ba se d, loc a l , or State a sse ssm e nts” to “ ide ntify what a dditiona l da

ta , if a ny , a re ne e de d” to de te rm ine a c hild’ s e ligibility , § 1414(c )(1). C a

pistra no re vie we d “ e xisting e va luation da ta ,” c onduc te d ne w 5c ognitiveand sta nda rdiz e d te s ts, c onsulte d Avia n a ’ s instruc tors, obse rve d he r in
c la ss, a nd de te rm ine d tha

t a se pa ra te visua l a sse ssm e nt wa s not ne c e ssa ry . C a pistra no a lso re vie w e d Avia

na ’ s re ports from

e va luators re ta ine d

by he r fam ily
and disc usse d this da

ta at a n IEP m e e t ing with Avia

na ’ s pa re nts. W e a gre e with the d istric t c o urt tha

t the Le grise s did not de m onstra te a proc e dura l viola

tion of IDEA. 4. La st, the Le grise s a rgue the distric t c ourt e rre d be c a use Avia na m e t IDEA’ s e ligibility

re q u ire m e nts for spe c ia l -e duc ation se rvic e s . “ A c hild is substa ntive ly e ligiblefor spe c ia l e duc ation a nd re late d se rvic e s if [s] he is a ‘ c hild with a disa bility
. ’ ” L.J

. , 850 F.3d a

t 1003 (quoting 20 U.S.C
. § 1401(3)(A)). He re , IDEA re quire d a

showing tha

t by re a son of a visua l im

pa irm e nt, othe r he a l th im pa irm e nt, or spe c ific le arning disa bility , Avia

na “ ne e d[e d] spe c ia l e duc ation a nd
re late d se rvic e s.” Id. (c iting 20 U.S.C
. § 1401(3)(A)). Avia na c ould “ n ot qua lify for spe c ia l e d

uc ation se rvic e s if support provide d through the re gula r sc hool program [wa ] s suffic i e nt.” Id. ; se e also 2 0 U.S.C . § 1412(a )(5)(A); C a l. Educ
. C ode § 56026(a)–(b). The Le grise s a

rgue tha t Avia n a progre sse d in high sc hool only “ through pa re nt-funde d spe c i a l e duc ation [a t Fusion] and re late d se rvic e s” and tha t this
e sta blishe d he r e ligibility

be c a u se “ one -to-one instruc tion . . . wa s c le arly spe c ia l

6e duc ation.” B ut a s the ALJ a n d distric t c o urt re c ogniz e d, the re c ord shows tha t Avia na a b ly a c c e sse d the ge ne ra l c urric ulum with only Se c tion 504 pla

n a c c om m odations. Avia

na c onsiste ntly

e arne d As, B s, a

n d C s at C a pistra no’ s sc hools a nd he r re a ding flue nc y

and c om pre he nsion sc ore s re m a ine d ave ra ge or be tte r. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Avia na ’ s one -to-one instruc tion
at a priva te sc hool wa s not “ spe c ia l e duc ation” tha t qua l ifie d he r for IDEA be ne fits or tha t C a pistra no wa s re quire d to m atc h. The distric t c ourt a l so found tha t Avia n a wa s not substa

ntive ly e ligiblefor IDEA be ne fits ba se d on a vision im pa irm e nt, othe r he a lth im pa irm e nt, or spe c ific le arning disa

bility . The Le grise s a

rgue tha t Avia na qua lifie d for IDEA be ne fits be c a use Dr. Ste phe y

dia gnose d he r with c onve rge nc e insuffic ie nc y and tre ate d he r with vision the

ra py . Avia na re c e ive d vision thera

py from Dr. Ste phe y , but the pa rtie s dispute whe the r the c onve rge nc e insuffic ie nc y dia gnosis wa s c re dible
. Eve n if we a ssum e a

c re dible dia gnosis, the

distric t c ourt c orre c tly

c o nc lude d tha

t the L e g rise s did not de m onstra t e tha t Avia na re quire d se rvic e s be y ond
m odific ation of there gula r sc hool progra

m be fore or a fte r she re c e i ve d vision the ra py and one -to-one instruc tion. As for a n “ othe r he a lth im

pa irm e n t” or “ spe c ific le arning disa bility ,” the Le grise s point to little

e vide nc e or le ga l a

uthority supporting the ir c o nte ntion tha t
7Avia

na m e t the e ligibility re quire m e n ts for e ithe r c at e gory . Se e 34 C .F.R . § 300.8(a )(1); se e also 20 U.S.C
. § 1401(3)(A)(i). And the re c ord supports the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c lusion tha t Avia na a de q u ate l y a c c e sse d the c urric ulum

in the
re gula r c la ssroom

with he r Se c t ion 504 a c c om m odations. W e a ffirm

the distric t
c ourt’ s c o nc lusion tha

t Avia na wa s not e ligible for spe c ia l e duc ation se rvic e s. AFFIRM E D.

8