Schmoe
Schmoe v. Yuba County
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Morton L. Schmoe, Cheryl E. Schmoe, and Geneva E. Meyers appeal pro se the *164 district court’s summary judgment dismissing their civil rights action alleging that Yuba County officials violated the Fourth Amendment and their right to due process and equal protection. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo, see David v. City of Los Angeles, 307 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Appellants’ procedural due process claim because they were given notice and an opportunity to contest the findings of county inspectors at a hearing, and subsequently appealed the results of that hearing. See Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487, 1492-93 (9th Cir.1990).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Appellants’ equal protection claim because they failed to show that the Appellees “acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against [them] based upon membership in a protected class.” See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).