Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Amendment claim because the record demonstrates that there are several disputed issues of material fact. We agree. We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment. Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir. 2002). “We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the releva h Cir.1998) (en banc) (explaining that “we tolerate informalities from civil pro se litigants”). A careful look at Christman’s “Opposition to Summary Judgment” reveals that it served as a statement of controverted facts. In addition, Plaintiffs’ verified complaint constituted an opposing affidavit. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Christman presented 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering successive motions for summary judgment when each of fdics motions reflected material changes in the posture of this litigation and was grounded on meritorious contentions (B) holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions (C) holding that a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and verifying the allegations set forth in the complaint were true and correct was competent summary judgment evidence (D) holding that where the plaintiff is pro se the court must consider as evidence in his opposition to summary judgment all of plaintiffs contentions offered in motions and pleadings where such contentions are based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and where plaintiff attested under penalty of perjury that the contents of the motions or pleadings are true and correct (E) holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed
Output (English): holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering successive motions for summary judgment when each of fdics motions reflected material changes in the posture of this litigation and was grounded on meritorious contentions