Kirk Knight v. Washington School District

Eighth Circuit

Kirk Knight v. Washington School District

416 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 2011

Docket10-3626

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 416 F. App'x 594 (Kirk Knight v. Washington School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kirk Knight v. Washington School District, 416 F. App'x 594 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kirk and Heather Knight appeal from the district court’s 1 dismissal of their action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in which they sought review of an administrative hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination that their due process complaint notice was insufficient. Upon de novo review, see Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. See 20 U.S.C. *595 §§ 1415(c) (governing procedure for hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination of sufficiency of due process complaint notice), (f) (governing impartial due process hearings), (i)(2)(A) (“any party aggrieved by the findings and decisions made under subsection (f) or (k) ... and ... findings and decision made under this subsection” shall have right to bring civil action in federal district court); S. Rep. 108-185 (2003) (“[t]here should be no hearing or appeal in regard to the hearing officer’s determination” of sufficiency of notice); see also Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 162.962 (permitting party to seek judicial review of hearing panel’s “decision”), 162.961.3 (indicating “decision” is one reached when, “[a]fter review of all evidence presented and a proper deliberation,” hearing panel “by majority vote determine^] its findings, conclusions, and decision in the matter in question”); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 200-01, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976) (in cases of statutory interpretation, language of statute controls when it is sufficiently clear in context). We conclude, however, that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir.2004) (district court generally barred from dismissing case with prejudice if it concludes subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking).

Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Kirk and Heather Knight appeal from the district court’s 1 dismissal of their action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in which they sought review of an administrative hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination that their due process complaint notice was insufficient. Upon de novo review, see Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. See 20 U.S.C. *595 §§ 1415(c) (governing procedure for hearing officer’s pre-hearing determination of sufficiency of due process complaint notice), (f) (governing impartial due process hearings), (i)(2)(A) (“any party aggrieved by the findings and decisions made under subsection (f) or (k) ... and ... findings and decision made under this subsection” shall have right to bring civil action in federal district court); S. Rep. 108-185 (2003) (“[t]here should be no hearing or appeal in regard to the hearing officer’s determination” of sufficiency of notice); see also Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 162.962 (permitting party to seek judicial review of hearing panel’s “decision”), 162.961.3 (indicating “decision” is one reached when, “[a]fter review of all evidence presented and a proper deliberation,” hearing panel “by majority vote determine^] its findings, conclusions, and decision in the matter in question”); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 200-01, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976) (in cases of statutory interpretation, language of statute controls when it is sufficiently clear in context). We conclude, however, that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir.2004) (district court generally barred from dismissing case with prejudice if it concludes subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking).

Accordingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-knight-v-washington-school-district-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack