Mery Castillo v. School Board of Broward County, Florida, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13943
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-60418-WPD
MERY CASTILLO,
on behalf of Yanni Castillo,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ROBERT W. RUNCIE,
Superintendent,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 15, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-13943 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mery Castillo, proceeding pro se on behalf of her son, Yanni Castillo,
appeals the district court’s denial of her motions for default judgment against the
School Board of Broward County, Florida (the “School Board”) and Robert W.
Runcie (the “Superintendent”) and the district court’s dismissal of her amended
complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Castillo also contends that the district court
judge was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(ii), and she
raises several procedural issues related to alleged incorrect docket entries and
delayed service of documents.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo’s motions
for default judgment. Default judgment was not warranted: the School Board and
Superintendent timely filed a motion to dismiss Castillo’s amended complaint,
which stayed the deadline for them to file a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(a)(4)(A). The district court did not err in dismissing Castillo’s amended
complaint that asserted the educational rights of a disabled child: she -- never
asserting futility or inadequacy -- failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
under the IDEA before bringing her suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1415(1); M.T.V. v.
DeKalb Cty Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1157-59 (11th Cir. 2006). We decline to
Case: 15-13943 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
consider Castillo’s assertion (without specifics) that the district court judge acted
improperly and the allegations on docket entry errors and delayed service: she
raised these arguments for the first time on appeal.* See Access Now, Inc. v.
Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (111th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
* Castillo identifies 13 issues in her statement of the issues, several of which address or restate
the same fundamental concepts. We address those issues into four broad issues.
Case: 15-13943 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --