* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANE DOE, a minor; KRISTEN D., Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. WILLITS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; WILLITS CHARTER SCHOOL; SALLY RULISON; CLINT SMITH, Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-16786 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03655-JSW
MEMORANDUM *

JANE DOE, a minor; KRISTEN D., Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. WILLITS CHARTER SCHOOL; SALLY RULISON, Defendants - Appellees, and No. 10-17880 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03655-JSW 

# FILED
JUN 08 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). -2- CLINT SMITH; WILLITS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 16, 2012 **

San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Jane Doe, through her guardian ad litem, Kristen D., appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Willits Unified School District, Willits Charter School, and Sally Rulison, the Di rector of the school (collectively “Willits”). Doe’s action stems from a se xual relationship between Doe and her high school math and science teacher. Af ter the relationship was made public, Doe filed suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), as well as under state law for negligent hiring and supervision. We have juri sdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.-3- Although Doe advances multiple grounds fo r relief, her appeal fails because she is unable to meet a key threshold requirement: that the school’s response to the alleged injuries was deliberately indiffere nt. Damages under Title IX are available only if an official with authority to a ddress the alleged discrimination and institute corrective measures has actual knowledgeof the discrimination and fails to adequately respond—i.e., acts w ith deliberate indifference. Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist. , 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998). The test for deliberate indifference is “whether a reasonable fact-finder could c onclude that the [school]’s response was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” Oden v. N. Marianas Coll. , 440 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2006) (int ernal quotation marks and citation omitted). To meet this high standard there must, in essence, be an official decision not to remedy the violation and this decision must be clearly unreasonable. Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 526 U.S. 629, 649 (1999). Summary judgment is proper when a school’s response to the harassment was not clearly unreasonable as a matter of law. Even a showing of hei ghtened negligence is insufficient to prove deliberate indifference. See Bd. of the Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown , 520 U.S. 397, 411-12 (1997) (discussing deliberate indifference as it applies to § 1983 cases). Doe argues that during the summer and fall of 2008, the school should have noticed warning signs of an inappropria te relationship. Those warning signs,-4- however, do not amount to actual notice and, as the district court stated, “[t]here is . . . no admissible evidence that anyone , including Plaintiff’s mother, informed the school administration” of some of those warning signs. Construing all the admissible evidence in Doe’s favor, she fa ils to establish either actual knowledge prior to January 8, 2009, or deliberate indi fference. Rumors of the teacher favoring Doe in his classes did not reach Rulison until December 2008. In response, Rulison called the teacher and Doe, separate ly, into her office to make inquiries but both vehemently denied any favoritis m or inappropriate relationship. As soon as Rulison was told of the sexual relationship, on January 8, 2009, she took immediate and appropriate action. She reported the relationship to Child Protective Services and followed up whenshe did not hear back promptly, contacted the Sheriff, turned the case over to the Willits Police Department, and placed the teacher on mandatory administrative leave. Rulison’s response cannot be characterized as deliberately indifferent , and Doe fails to establish that Rulison or the school had actual knowledge of the sexual relationship prior to January 8, 2009. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment. AFFIRMED.