Karlozian
Karlozian v. Clovis Unified School District
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Weiner v. San Diego County, 210 F.8d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). Because Karlozian submitted direct evidence of discrimination, he was only required to produce “very little” evidence to show that the District’s legitimate reason was pretextual. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir. 1998).
*836 Karlozian did not, however, present any pretext evidence to the district court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) required Karlozian to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” He failed to do so, despite being warned by the district court that the District’s motion had the “power to end your lawsuit.”
He argues that he is entitled to lenient treatment because he was proceeding pro se. We have held, however, that “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler; 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986) (upholding summary judgment against pro se plaintiff in civil rights case where plaintiff failed to file responsive material in opposition of summary judgment motion).