Marcus I. Ex Rel. Karen I. v. Department of Education

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Marcus I., through his parent Karen I., appeals the district court’s order affirming the hearing officer’s denial of his claims that the Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) did not offer him a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years, and that the DOE improperly refused to pay for his housing expenses and reasonable visitation costs while he attended his off-island school pursuant to the stay-put provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

1. The hearing officer did not err in denying Marcus’s claim related to the May 16, 2008 prior written notice offer. “Procedural flaws do not automatically require a finding of a denial of a FAPE.” W.G. v. Bd. of Trustees of Target Range Seh. Dist. No. 23, Missoula, Mont., 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 (9th Cir.1992), superseded in part by statute on other grounds. They “may be harmless if they do not result in a loss of educational opportunity or significantly restrict parental participation.” K.D. ex rel. C.L. v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii, 665 F.3d 1110, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks, formatting, and citations omitted). Here, even if…