Alicia Unger v. City of Los Angeles; Chief Ronald J. Boyd; Sgt. Kevin McCloskey

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the***
Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALICIA UNGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CHIEF
RONALD J. BOYD; SGT. KEVIN
MCCLOSKEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55375
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02139-SVW-CT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY, Senior
District Judge.***
FILED
APR 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Plaintiff Alicia Unger brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights during an incident
that occurred after a press conference on August 3, 2007. She appeals the district
court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Sergeant
Kevin McCloskey, Port Police Chief Ronald Boyd, and the City of Los Angeles on
her First Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Because Unger has not presented any evidence from which a reasonable
fact-finder could infer that McCloskey acted with the intent to chill her speech, she
has not created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his conduct violated
her rights under the First Amendment. See Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino
County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300-01 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Unger has not created a
genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a constitutional violation, her
supervisory and municipal liability claims also fail. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.
1989). Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendants.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --