Eric Gomez v. David Saccoccio

In May 2020, Plaintiff David Saccoccio was struck in the arm with a single round from a less-lethal system deploying frangible foam projectiles, while disobeying police commands to stop, actively scaling a fence into a private residential yard, and violating an emergency curfew order. Saccoccio brought a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Officer Eric Gomez, who deployed the round, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Officer Gomez on both prongs of qualified immunity. As relevant here, the Ninth Circuit held that “[m]ultiple cases can be read together to clearly establish a constitutional violation,” and held that one aspect of Officer Gomez’s conduct was governed by Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012), and the other by Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001), despite both cases being factually dissimilar to Officer Gomez’s encounter. In light of this holding, the question presented is: Whether combining general principles from two factually dissimilar cases conflicts with this Court’s precedents requiring lower courts to define rights with specificity and use close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment constitutional right is clearly established. (i)