Whether the Ninth Circuit, when granting summary judgment to the movants, clearly ignoring Nevada state court judgments that concluded the LVMPD violated the Fourth Amendment (illegal search/seizure warrant ruling because probable cause never established due to fraudulent misrepresentations within the warrant affidavit) and Fourteenth Amendment (failure to preserve foreseeably exculpatory evidence), patently violated the Supreme Court's holding in Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 1738; which held that "[F]ederal courts must 'give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered" ... collateral estoppel under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 based on state-court criminal proceedings applies to subsequent civil litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id at 101, 104-05. Alternatively, whether the Ninth Circuit, in granting summary judgment to the movants, was insufficiently deferential to the Nevada state courts decisions concluding the movants had violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when the Ninth Circuit failed to show that the state court rulings, as decided by the Supreme Court in Richter, were "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement."

Whether the Ninth Circuit by invading the province of the jury at the summary judgment stage and articulating the factual context of the case in the best light to the movants (defendants), while blatantly ignoring the nonmovant's (plaintiff's) theories of prosecution and factual evidence set forth in his affidavits and answers to interrogatories, failed to adhere to the Supreme Court axiom that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor" Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at 1863 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986))... the court may not ignore the plaintiffs' evidence, which includes the affidavits and answers to interrogatories ... Tolan, 572 U.S. at 657 ("By failing to credit evidence that contradicted some of its key factual conclusions, the court improperly 'weigh[ed] the evidence' and resolved disputed issues in favor of the moving party").

Whether the Ninth Circuit's decision whereby it egregiously and unfairly invaded the province of the jury conflicts with Supreme Court precedent regarding the "general rule that a 'judge's function' at summary judgment is not 'to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.' Anderson, 477 U.S., at 249 . Summary judgment is appropriate only if 'the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' [FRCP] 56(a). ... a court must view the evidence "in the light most favorable to

Whether a pro se civil rights plaintiff can challenge a district court's summary judgment dismissal under 42 U.S.C. §1983 after a Ninth Circuit panel affirms the lower court's ruling