Frank Ortiz v. David Kelly

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Frank Ortiz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s or der refusing to impose sanctions for alleged spoliation of evidence, Ingham v. United States, 167 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir.1999). When a party raises the issue of judicial bias for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. United States v. Bosch, 951 F.2d 1546, 1548 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. Although the district court warned Ortiz that he must set forth specific facts in the form of admissible evidence, Ortiz failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to the sexual assault claim. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Ortiz also failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to his access to the courts claim. See id.; Christopher v. Harbury, 536…