Shevtsov
Shevtsov v. Los Angeles Community College District
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Tatyana Shevtsov and her husband Vladimir Shevtsov appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor *645 of defendants in their civil rights action arising from alleged national origin discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. FDIC v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
An equal protection claim requires a showing that “the defendant acted in a discriminatory manner and that the discrimination was intentional.” Id. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Tatyana Shevtsov’s equal protection claims because she failed to produce evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the motivations of any of the defendants. Id. The district court properly granted summary judgment on her First Amendment claim because Tatyana Shevtsov failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the conduct of any of the defendants would chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising her First Amendment rights. See Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir.1999).