to IDEA’S.” Robb, 308 F.3d at 1051. If failure to exhaust administrative remedies proscribed under IDEA is an affirmative defense, as it is under the PLRA, then it must be raised in a responsive pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1), or in an unenumerated motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 939 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005). 5 . Unless otherwise specified, all references to the Education Code refers to the California Education Code. 6 . It is not inconsistent to find that Plaintiff's educational performance has been adversely affected by her impediment, but that Plaintiff nonetheless does not need special education or related services. See Alvin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. A.D. ex rel. Patricia F., 503 F.3d 378, 383-84 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Court sustains Plaintiff's
holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability recognizing that an alien is ineligible for relief under  212c if he was not actually admissible at the time he received an adjustment of status holding that even if a disability adversely affected the students educational performance he was ineligible under idea because of his academic and social progress