NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`FEB 19 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
` No. 24-3324
`
`D.C. No.
`1:23-cv-00222-JAO-WRP
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`HUNTER BANTA, Individually and on
`behalf of his minor son, I.B.,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
` v.
`
`KEITH HAYASHI; KENNETH S. FINK,
`M.D.; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-
`25; DOES, Entities 1-10,
`
` Defendants - Appellees.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Hawaii
`Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted February 14, 2025**
`Honolulu, Hawaii
`
`
`Before: S.R. THOMAS, BRESS, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Plaintiffs I.B. and his father Hunter Banta (collectively, Banta) claim that
`
`Hawaii’s Department of Education failed to provide I.B. with a free appropriate
`
`*
`
`
`This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`**
`
`The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
`without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`FEB 19 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
` No. 24-3324
`
`D.C. No.
`1:23-cv-00222-JAO-WRP
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`HUNTER BANTA, Individually and on
`behalf of his minor son, I.B.,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
` v.
`
`KEITH HAYASHI; KENNETH S. FINK,
`M.D.; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-
`25; DOES, Entities 1-10,
`
` Defendants - Appellees.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Hawaii
`Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted February 14, 2025**
`Honolulu, Hawaii
`
`
`Before: S.R. THOMAS, BRESS, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Plaintiffs I.B. and his father Hunter Banta (collectively, Banta) claim that
`
`Hawaii’s Department of Education failed to provide I.B. with a free appropriate
`
`*
`
`
`This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`**
`
`The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
`without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`
`
`
`public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
`
`(IDEA).
`
` The district court affirmed the administrative hearing officer’s
`
`determinations that the Department of Education’s failure strictly to comply with
`
`I.B.’s individualized education program (IEP) was not material, and that placement
`
`in a residential treatment facility was not an appropriate remedy. We have
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
`
`“The question of whether a school district’s IEP provided a FAPE is reviewed
`
`de novo.” Crofts v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 22 F.4th 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 2022).
`
`“Courts must, however, give ‘“due weight” to judgments of education policy’ when
`
`reviewing state administrative hearing decisions.” L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. A.O.,
`
`92 F.4th 1159, 1168 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811
`
`F.2d 1307, 1311 (9th Cir. 1987)). “Administrative findings that are thorough and
`
`careful,” as they are in this case, “are entitled to ‘particular deference.’” Id. (quoting
`
`JG v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 793 (9th Cir. 2008)).
`
`1.
`
`The district court did not err in concluding that I.B. was not denied a
`
`FAPE. “To determine whether a student was denied a [FAPE], the court assesses
`
`first ‘whether the IDEA’s procedures were complied with and second whether the
`
`district met its substantive obligation to provide a FAPE.’” Id. at 1169 (quoting
`
`Crofts, 22 F.4th at 1054). As to procedure, there is no basis for Banta’s assertion
`
`that the hearing officer was biased or precluded from serving in that role under 20
`
`
`
`2
`
`24-3324
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(A)(i). As to substance, we discern no error in the district court’s
`
`conclusion that I.B. was not denied a FAPE when his registered behavior technician
`
`was out on maternity leave. This discrepancy with the IEP was not material because
`
`during this time, I.B. received individualized support from other staff members and
`
`continued to make academic progress. See L.A. Unified, 92 F.4th at 1170 (“Only
`
`‘material’ failures to implement an individualized education program violate the
`
`statute.” (quoting Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811,
`
`822 (9th Cir. 2007))).
`
`2.
`
`Even assuming a material failure of I.B.’s IEP, the district court
`
`properly found that placement in a residential treatment facility would not be an
`
`appropriate remedy. When determining whether a residential placement is
`
`appropriate, we “must focus on whether the residential placement may be considered
`
`necessary for educational purposes, or whether the placement is a response to
`
`medical, social, or emotional problems that is necessary quite apart from the learning
`
`process.” Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents of Student E.H., 587 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th
`
`Cir. 2009) (brackets omitted) (quoting Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Off. of
`
`Admin. Hearings, 903 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1990)). The latter types of problems
`
`do not justify residential placement under the IDEA. See id.
`
`In this case, the district court and hearing officer reasonably relied on the
`
`testimony of I.B.’s special education teacher that I.B.’s educational needs could be
`
`
`
`3
`
`24-3324
`
`
`
`met in the current school setting, and that his aggressive episodes were more
`
`uncontrollable at home rather than at school, where his behavior and coping skills
`
`were improving. The district court and hearing officer likewise reasonably
`
`discounted the testimony of Drs. Carlton and Brownstein because they were less
`
`familiar with I.B.’s educational experience. Banta’s reliance on the hearing officer
`
`decision in Student v. Dep’t of Ed., Department of Education-SY2324-026 (Dep’t of
`
`Att’y Gen. Mar. 18, 2024), is misplaced because the student there displayed
`
`extensive aggressive and self-injurious behavior at school, which is not the case
`
`here.1
`
`3.
`
`There is no merit to Banta’s argument that the district court committed
`
`procedural error in its resolution of this case. The district court did not deny Banta
`
`the opportunity to conduct discovery or present evidence. Banta’s other allegations
`
`of procedural error are likewise unfounded.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`1 To the extent Banta argues that I.B. was not provided with mental health services,
`the argument is both unexhausted and unsupported. In addition, because we affirm
`the district court’s decision that I.B. was not denied a FAPE, we do not reach
`defendant Fink’s arguments that he is not a proper party to this case, or, in the
`alternative, that Banta failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against Fink and
`the Department of Health. Finally, Banta’s claim under Section 504 of the
`Rehabilitation Act fails “[b]ecause a school district’s provision of a FAPE under the
`IDEA meets Section 504 FAPE requirements.” K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified
`Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 1099 (9th Cir. 2013).
`
`
`
`4
`
`24-3324
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
