With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

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 while parents may not bring a title ix claim as individuals they may bring such claim on behalf of a deceased child
C: holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim
D: holding that under arizona law a litigant may not bring a claim identical to one she has previously litigated
D.