Edu-Hi

MEMORANDUM

Lainey C. appeals the district court’s order of April 30, 2013, that affirmed the Administrative Hearing Officer’s (“AHO”) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of March 27, 2012. We affirm.

1. The district court held that five of Lainey’s arguments, each concerning the inadequacy of her August, 4, 2011, Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”), had not been presented to the AHO and, thus, were not administratively exhausted. This court has held that an argument not raised in an administrative complaint or due process hearing is not exhausted and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to the district court. Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc). The district court emphasized Lainey’s failure to exhaust these five arguments and allowed Lainey the opportunity to demonstrate where the arguments had been exhausted, which Lainey could not do. Likewise, on appeal to this court, Lainey does not identify where the arguments were presented to the AHO. Thus, the district court did not err in holding that Lainey failed to administratively…