Dixie

facts that existed and would have prevented summary judgment. See Nidds v.

Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth the

standard).

The district court did not err in denying Dixie’s motion to strike Defendant

Poindexter’s declaration. The district court does not make credibility

determinations when it rules on summary judgment motions. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Dixie’s motion

to appoint a handwriting expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. This case

does not involve “complex scientific, medical or technical matters” that would

require an independent expert to assist the trier of fact. See Armstrong v. Brown,

768 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that “[a] Rule 706 expert typically acts

as an advisor to the court on complex scientific, medical, or technical matters.”).

Summary judgment was proper on the First Amendment retaliation claims

23-3985 alleged against Defendants Amarillas and Ward. Dixie did not offer sufficient

evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about whether Amarillas…