In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: Raye Ellen Stiles appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging, among other claims, housing discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record. Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 733-34 (9th Cir.2012). We affirm. Summary judgment on Stiles’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, aggravation of preexisting conditions, and public humiliation was proper because she already litigated these claims in Arizona state court, and, thus, res judicata precludes her from bringing such claims in federal court. See Sunkist Growers v. Fisher, 104 F.3d 280, 283-84 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Summary judgment on Stiles’ federal claims 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a person has standing to bring suit under the civil rights act if she or he can show that she or he was punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities (B) holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim (C) holding that while parents may not bring a title ix claim as individuals they may bring such claim on behalf of a deceased child (D) holding that under arizona law a litigant may not bring a claim identical to one she has previously litigated (E) holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea

A: (D)
****
Q: a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, id., and “the court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations.” Warren v. Dist. of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2004). 1. Equal protection “Unless a classification ... is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage,” statutory distinctions are presumed constitutional, and will survive a challenge if the classification is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). Although not every non-suspect legislative classification passes muster under rational basis review, see, e.g., Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 882, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 84 L.Ed.2d 751 (1985) (<HOLDING>), “the judiciary may not sit as a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts (B) holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others (C) holding that a preferential state tax rate for domestic businesses violated the equal protection clause because the states justifications  that the tax promoted domestic industry and encouraged investment in domestic assets  were not legitimate government interests since if they were any discriminatory tax would be valid if the state could show it reasonably was intended to benefit domestic business (D) holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety (E) holding that if federal income tax statutes are intended to benefit anyone it is the federal government to whom the withheld tax is to be remitted there is no indication anywhere in the language of the statutes that congress intended to confer rights on employees with respect to the withholding of tax

A: (C)
****
Q: 519 S.E.2d at 101. 13 . Id. at 153, 519 S.E.2d at 101-02. 14 . Id. at 152-53, 519 S.E.2d at 101-02. 15 . We note that Davis may have wrapped the head of the sledgehammer in a towel. There is no evidence, however, that this lessened the tendency of a five-pound sledgehammer to cause death or great bodily injury if used to strike someone in the head. See State v. Bennett, 328 S.C. 251, 262, 493 S.E.2d 845, 850-51 (1997) (“A deadly weapon is generally defined as any article, instrument or substance which is likely to produce death or great bodily harm."); Commonwealth v. Marks, 704 A.2d 1095, 1100 (Pa.Super.1997) (categorizing a sledgehammer as a deadly weapon when used upon a vital part of the body such as the head). 16 . See State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 550, 446 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Morris, 307 S.C. 480, 484, 415 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process (B) holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon (C) holding the intentional use of a dangerous instrumentality does not support the allegation of mere criminal negligence (D) holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct (E) holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort

A:
(C)
****