Case Name: Zakiya VAUGHN, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-05
Citations: 361 F. App'x 756
Docket Number: No. 08-17226
Parties: Zakiya VAUGHN, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 756–757

Head Matter:
Zakiya VAUGHN, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CITY POLICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17226.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 5, 2010.
Zakiya Vaughn, as an Individual and Guardian ad Litem for Minors, Jamonte Vaughn, Jamarco Vaughn, Jalen Vaughn, Elk Grove, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Marcos Kropf, Esquire, Office of Sacramento City Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Zakiya Vaughn and her children appeal pro se from the district court's summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Sacramento City Police had a custom or practice of ignoring the safety of African-American individuals when searching premises for criminal suspects. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3) (deeming admitted matters set forth in a request for admission unless the party to whom the request is directed responds within 30 days); Conlon, 474 F.3d at 621 ("Unanswered requests for admissions may be relied on as the basis for granting summary judgment.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.