Alexa Russell; v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXA RUSSELL; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
STATE OF HAWAII; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 07-17126
D.C. No. CV-03-00654-HG/BMK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Alexa and George W. Russell, and their son Laak Russell, appeal pro se
from the district court’s judgment affirming an administrative decision in favor of
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-17126 2
the Department of Education for the State of Hawaii (“DOE”) under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact and
review de novo its conclusions of law. Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch.
Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the DOE did not deny Laak a “free
appropriate public education” under the IDEA by withholding mileage
reimbursement for transporting Laak to and from school because the Russells
failed to provide proof of automobile insurance or submit any reimbursement
forms as required by the parties’ agreement. See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); Van
Duyn, 502 F.3d at 815 (holding that a school district “does not violate the IDEA
unless it is shown to have materially failed to implement the child’s [individualized
educational program]”). The district court also properly denied the Russells’ claim
for emotional, general, and punitive money damages because such relief is not
available under the IDEA. See Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 936
(9th Cir. 2007).
We do not consider the Russells’ contentions raised for the first time on
appeal. See Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 515 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --