Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 917282
Summary Calendar.
Tanya LEE, a Minor, By and Through Mrs. Vicki MacMILLAN, Her Natural Mother and Next
Friend, and Vicki MacMillan, Individually, PlaintiffsAppellants,
v.
BILOXI SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., DefendantsAppellees.
June 26, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Tanya Lee and her mother, Vicki MacMillan, appeal the mootness dismissal of a part of their
handicapped education claims. Based on the stipulation detailed infra and for the reasons assigned,
we affirm.
Background
Believing her daughter learning disabled, for several years MacMillan unsuccessfully sought
special education for her in the Biloxi School District (BSD). She had her child privately tested in
July 1988 and, armed with those test results, intensified her efforts to secure special education
assistance during the 198889 school year. She met with no success; the BSD's petitions to the
Mississippi State Department of Education (MSDE) for special education eligibility for Tanya were
rejected. Tanya was withdrawn from the BSD and she went to live with her father in order to attend
school in the Long Beach School District (LBSD). During her first year in that school system she
was ruled eligible for special education classes.
The instant suit was filed against the BSD, its Director of Exceptional Student Services, and
the Mississippi Superintendent of Public Education, alleging violation of the Education of the

Handicapped Act, as amended (EHA), 20 U.S.C. ЇЇ 1400 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29
U.S.C. Ї 794. The district court dismissed as moot the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief,
and dismissed without prejudice the claims for damages and attorney's fees for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. A timely appeal of the mootness dismissal was noted.
Analysis
The district court found the claims for prospective relief moot because of Tanya's transfer
from the BSD. This ruling cannot be reconciled with Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Education,1 a case
in which the parents enrolled their child in private school while seeking review of a contested
placement decision. We there held that removing the child from the public school system did not
moot the EHA claim because the entitlement under the EHA survived and the controversy remained
capable of repet ition. "A case may circumvent the mootness doctrine if the conduct of which the
plaintiff originally complained is "capable of repetition, yet evading review.' "2
Similarly here, MacMillan removed her child from the BSD and simultaneously sought judicial
relief from decisions she believed to be illegal and, more importantly, detrimental to her child's well
being and educational best interests. The record reflects a reasonable expectation that Tanya would
return to live with her mother and re-enroll in the BSD were she assured that the Biloxi District
would provide the needed special education. As in Daniel R.R., MacMillan's refusal to sacrifice
critical years of her daughter's development pending time-consuming review proceedings does not
render her case moot.3 To hold otherwise effectively would insulate EHA claims from judicial
review.
1874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1989).
2Id., 874 F.2d at 1040, quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 318, 108 S.Ct. 592, 601, 98
L.Ed.2d 686, 703 (1988).
3Cf. School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dept. of Education of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985).

The Biloxi School District defendants4 urge an affirmance based on their express commitment
to be bound by the Long Beach School District determination that Tanya needs special education,
and to make available special education equal to that provided by Long Beach. The record reflects
this commitment which is summarized in appellees' brief to this court as follows:
With the MSDE authorized eligibility determination Tanya was placed in a program of special
education for specific learning disabilities under an appropriate Individual Educational Plan
(IEP).... [W]ith the advent of the MSDE approved eligibility of Tanya for special education
she could ret urn t o BSD at any time and be immediately placed in the same program of
special education under her existent IEP. BSD has stipulated it would recognize Tanya's
subsequently determined eligibility for special education and her existent IEP placement....
Should ... Tanya ... re-enroll in the BSD, she will remain eligible for the same special
education placement as is available and existent in the LBSD.
The Biloxi defendants also concede that Tanya's IEP "mandates placement in an appropriate program
of special education for specific learning disabilities through the completion of her secondary
education."
Considering this commitment by the BSD and its Director of Exceptional Student Services,
and persuaded that the commitment will be faithfully honored, we conclude that the claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief are effectively mooted and, accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.5

4The state defendant neither joins nor rejects this basis for affirmance.
5We neither express nor imply any opinion about the merits of the claims dismissed for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.