NOT PRECEDENT IAL

UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

______ _____

N o. 1 9

- 3 6 9 9

________ _ _

ANDREW MOYNIHAN; KAREN MOYNIHAN

, Appellant s

v.

WEST CHESTER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE FOR

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

________

______________________ ______

On Appeal from the U nited States District Court

f or the E a s t e r n Di stri c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Ci v il Action No. 2

- 18

- cv

- 04388 )

District Judge: Ho nora ble Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro

____________________________________

Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

M a y 1 9

, 2 0 2 0

Before: A M B R O

, G R E E N A W A Y

, J r

. , a n d P O R T E R

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 3, 2020 )

____ _____ __

OPINION *

___ _ _ ____ __

PER CURIAM

Pro se app ellant s A n d r e w a n d K a r e n M o y n i h a n appeal f r o m the D istrict Court’s

* This d isp o sition i s n ot an opinion of t he full C o ur t and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

cons ti tute binding pre cedent.2

o rder dismissing t h e i r c o m p l a i n t for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. For the reasons

d i s c u s s e d below, we wi ll we will affirm in part, va cate in pa rt, and remand for furthe r

proceedi ngs consistent with this opinion

.

I

.

Because we write primarily for th e parties, we will r ec ite only the facts necessary

for our discussi on

. B e g i n n i n g i n 2 0 1 6

, t h e M o y n i h a n s f i l e d a s e r i e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

c o m p l a i n t s w i t h t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a O f f i c e o f D i s p u t e R e s o l u t i o n ( “ O D R ” ) a g a i n s t t h e

W e s t C h e s t e r A r e a S c h o o l D i s t r i c t ( t h e “ S c h o o l D i s t r i c t ” )

. T h e y c l a i m e d t h a t t h e S c h o o l

D i s t r i c t v i o l a t e d t h e I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s E d u c a t i o n A c t

, s e e 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1400 et

s e q

. , b y f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e t h e i r t h e n

- m i n o r c h i l d

, w h o h a s A s p e r g e r S y n d r o m e a n d S o c i a l

A n x i e t y D i s o r d e r

, w i t h a f r e e a p p r o p r i a t e p u

b l i c e d u c a t i o n ( “ F A P E ” ) i n h i s n i n t h

, t e n t h

,

a n d e l e v e n t h g r a d e s c h o o l y e a r s

. A n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d e n i e d t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c l a i m s i n 2 0 1 8

.

T h e M o y n i h a n s

, p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e

, s e e Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma

City Sch. Dist. , 550 U.S. 5 16, 535 (2007)

, t h e n f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

a g a i n s t t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t a n d O D R

. T h e M o y n i h a n s r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

“ r e v e r s e t h e D e c i s i o n s o f t h e [ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ] a s t h e y a r e s t a t e d i n E x h i b i t

‘ A ’ a n d f i n d i n o u r f

a v o r i n a l l m a t t e r s s e t f

o r t h t h e r e i n

. ” E C F N o

. 2 a t 1 9

. T h e e x h i b i t

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e M o y n i h a n s h a d s o u g h t

, a m o n g o t h e r r e l i e f

, “ r e i m b u r s e m e n t f

o r

. . . o u t

o f p o c k e t e x p e n s e s ” i n c u r r e d i n t h e s c h o o l y e a r s w h e n t h e i r s o n w a s a l l e g e d l y d e n i e d a3

F A P E

. E C F N o

. 2 a t 2 1

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d O D R ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m

. 1

T he District Co urt dismissed the remaining claims a g a i n s t t h e S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s u a s p o n t e

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e M o y n i h a n s h a d r e q u e s t e d o n l y

i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

, a n d t h a t s u c h c l a i m s f

o r r e l i e f w e r e m o o t e d b y t h e i r s o n ’ s g r a d u a t i o n

.

T h i s a p p e a l e n s u e d

.

I I

.

We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. S e e D.F. v. Collingswood Borough

Bd. of Educ. , 69 4 F.3d 488, 49 5

– 9 6 (3d Cir. 201 2)

. We review de novo the Di s trict

Court ’ s dism issal for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

v . Price , 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007)

. We construe t h e M o y n i h a n s ’ pro se

complaint liberally

. S ee Erickson v. Par dus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)

.

I I I

.

T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t s o u g h t d e c l a r a t o r y a n d i n

j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

, t h o s e

c l a i m s w e r e m o o t e d b y t h e g r a d u a t i o n o f t h e M o y n i h a n s ’ s o n

. S e e Donovan ex rel.

D onovan v. Pu nxsutawney Area Sch. Bd. , 336 F.3 d 211, 216 (3d Cir. 2003) ( e x p l a i n i n g

t h a t

, w h e n a s t

u d e n t c h a l l e n g e s a s c h o o l p o l i c y

, “ graduation typically moots her claim for

injuncti ve or declaratory relief ” ) ; s e e a l s o Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Cor p.

,

1 T h e Moyni hans do not challenge the Distric t Court ’ s ruli ng that they failed to state a

claim against ODR, and we will affirm t hat ruling.4

442 F.3d 588, 598 ( 7th Cir. 2006) ; Lillba sk ex rel. Mauclaire v. Conn. Dep ’ t of Educ.

,

397 F.3d 77, 91 (2d Cir. 20 05)

. T h u s

, w e w i l l a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f

t h o s e c l a i m s f

o r l a c k o f subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n

. S e e D o n o v a n

, 3 3 6 F

. 3 d a t 2 1 6

.

H o w e v e r

, t h e M o y n i h a n s a r g u e t h a t t h e i r p r o s e c o m p l a i n t a l s o b r o u g h t c l a i m s f o r

r e i m b u r s e m e n t a n d f

o r c o m p e n s a t o r y e d

u c a t i o n ; a n d

, c o n s t r

u i n g t h e i r c o m p l a i n t l i b e r a l l y

,

w e a g r e e

. T he M o y n i h a n s sought reimbursement in the administrative proceedings. S e e

E C F N o

. 2 a t 2 1

. Thus, when t h e y re quest ed that the D i s t r i c t C o u r t “ r e v e r s e t h e

D e c i s i o n s o f t h e [ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ]

. . . a n d f

i n d i n o u r f

a v o r i n a l l m a t t e r s

s e t f o r t h t h e r e i n

, ” E C F N o

. 2 a t 1 9

, the M o y n i h a n s inc orporate d th eir clai m s for

reimbursement

. T h o s e c l a i m s a r e n o t m o o t

. S e e Collingswood

, 694 F.3d a t 497

– 98

( h o l d i n g “ that a claim for co mpensatory education is not rendered moot by an out

- of

district move ” ) ; s e e a l s o Olu

- Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch. , 930 F.3d 519, 531

n

. 2 (D.C. Ci r. 2019 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t a s t u d e n t ’ s graduation “ does not affect our mootness

an alysis because [ t h e s t

u d e n t ] remains eligible for compensatory education ” ) ; B r o w n

,

4 4 2 F

. 3 d a t 5 9 7 ( n o t i n g t h a t s e v e r a l “ circuits have held that a claim for ‘ reimbursement

can defeat a mootness challenge ’ ” ) ( q u o t i n g Lillbask , 397 F.3d a t 89 )

. T h u s

, w e w i l l

v a c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r i n p a r t a n d r e m a n d f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h o s e

c l a i m s

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n p a r t

, v a c a t e t h e

j u d g m e n t i n p a r t

, and re mand for fu rthe r proceed ings consistent with this opinion

.