Trinh

MEMORANDUM

Richard Trihn and Amphouvanhna Chanthalamgsy appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the City of Marysville and City officials in their action alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1278 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Equal Protection Clause claims and other racial discrimination claims arising under federal statutes, because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants were motivated by racial animus when they temporarily shut-down plaintiffs’ night-club and subsequently revoked their conditional use permit. See id. (providing that affidavit in opposition to summary judgment must be based on personal knowledge); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536-38 (9th Cir.1992) (affirming summary judgment for defendant on 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) claim, and explaining that racial animus is an element of a section 1985(3) claim).

Even if plaintiffs had a cognizable property interest in the…