Dustin Matthews v. City of Tempe, Arizona, et al.

Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from this Court’s Rule 56 jurisprudence by sanctioning summary judgment where the district court failed to credit, acknowledge, or address record evidence favorable to the nonmovant, instead resolving factual disputes and engaging in speculation in favor of the moving party, contrary to Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

Whether an appellate court denies meaningful review and fails to conduct the required de novo review when it sanctions summary judgment without addressing record evidence cited by the appellant, defers to a procedurally flawed district court ruling, or refuses to review the underlying record necessary to determine compliance with Rule 56, contrary to Tolan v. Cotton, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996), and Agyeman v. I.N.S., 296 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2002).

Whether a district court effectively enters a directed verdict under the guise of summary judgment, sanctioned on appeal, when it disregards or rejects the nonmovant’s evidence and version of events without explanation, draws inferences in favor of the moving party, or substitutes speculation for record­ based analysis, in violation of Rule 56 and the Seventh Amendment.

Whether continued application of the McDonnell Douglas framework at