Kirk Knight, et al v. Washington School District, No. 10-3626 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Education law. District court order dismissing IDEA action for lack of jurisdiction affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3626 ___________ Kirk Knight; Heather Knight, as Parents and Legal Guardians of their minor child J.N.K., Appellants, v. Washington School District, Appellee. * * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: April 15, 2011 Filed: April 27, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Kirk and Heather Knight appeal from the district court s1 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 1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. court properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 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[s] its findings, conclusions, and decision in the matter in question ); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 200-01 (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. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
