• Molly Watson

Ninth circuit dismisses student's restraint and seclusion case

Updated: Jun 18

On December 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in A.T. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, et al. This case concerns A.T., a boy who was repeatedly subjected to restraints and seclusion during the course of three years, ending in 2009 when he was in second grade. It is undisputed that A.T. was severely emotionally disturbed and regularly displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward school staff and other students.


A.T. and his guardian argued before the court that the use of restraints and seclusions exceeded what was allowed under his elementary school's policies, and under his Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and thereby violated his Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.


The Court narrowed the question at issue to be whether clearly established law prohibited the defendants from using restraints and seclusion to address A.T.'s severe emotional and behavioral issues, including aggression toward staff and students, when the specific uses and durations of the restraints and seclusion were often in excess of what was prescribed in A.T.'s IEP.


The school district and the other defendants, including teachers and staff who had inflicted restraints and seclusions on A.T. or who had supervised and approved their use, successfully moved to dismiss the case against them on the grounds of qualified immunity.


The court decided that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations. It was not enough that they knew what they were doing was wrong and not in conformance with A.T.'s IEP. In previous cases, the court had recognized that even public officials who know that what they are doing is morally wrong are protected by qualified immunity, so long as they did not have clear notice that their actions violated the Fourth Amendment or other relevant law.


Education Attorney Molly Watson

www.caledattorney.com

If you need help, call 530-273-2740.


The information on the Caledattorney website is for general information purposes for California residents only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice or relied upon for any purpose. Viewing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

7 views

Recent Posts

See All

OAH CASE NUMBER 2020070970

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF: PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, v. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION OAH CA

OAH CASE NO. 2020050465

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO. 2020050465 PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. DECISION AUGUST 24, 2020 On May 18, 2020, the

OAH CASE NO. 2020060274

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. AUGUST 31, 2020 On June 8, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearin

915 Highland Point Drive
Suite 250
Roseville, California
333 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, California
1901 Harrison Street
Suite 100
Oakland, California
OUR LOCATIONS
FOLLOW CALEDATTORNEY
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Tumblr Social Icon
  • Instagram

The information on the Caledattorney website is general information for California residents only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice or relied on for any individual case or situation.  We serve clients throughout California and  Northern California including Fresno, San Jose, PlacervilleStockton, Redding, Chico, Auburn, Grass Valley, Sacramento, Truckee, Marysville, Redding, San Francisco, Truckee, Elk Grove, Yuba City, EurekaSanta Rosa, Vacaville and Fairfield.

Molly Watson is available to meet with parents by Skype or FaceTime.

MW

Serving exceptional children & their families

MOLLY WATSON

530-273-2740