Gomez v. Lopez et al

On October 29, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in the civil rights lawsuit Gomez v. Lopez et al. The plaintiff, Jesus C. Gomez, an inmate in the California correctional system, alleged that correctional officer M. Lopez used excessive physical force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Gomez claimed the force was applied maliciously and without justification. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Lopez, finding insufficient evidence of a constitutional violation. On appeal, Gomez argued that factual disputes should have precluded summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Gomez failed to demonstrate the force was applied maliciously or that it caused more than de minimis injury.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant M. Lopez, ruling that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the malicious and sadistic application of force.

Whether correctional officer M. Lopez used excessive force against inmate Jesus C. Gomez in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and whether the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

The ruling underscored the high evidentiary burden placed on prisoners in excessive force claims and reinforced qualified immunity protections for correctional officers. It fueled ongoing public and legal debate over accountability mechanisms within the U.S. prison system and the difficulty of challenging official misconduct under current judicial standards.