The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment ruling in favor of Phoenix Police Officer Eric Gomez, who shot David Saccoccio with less-lethal rounds during the first night of a mandatory curfew imposed in response to civil unrest in late May 2020.

The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Hawkins, Rawlinson, and M. Smith, issued the memorandum opinion on Jan. 15, 2026, following oral arguments held Jan. 6 in Phoenix. The case, *Saccoccio v. City of Phoenix*, arose from events during the civil unrest that swept through many American cities in May 2020.

Saccoccio filed suit against the City of Phoenix, Police Chief Jeri Williams, Douglas McBride, and Officer Gomez after being shot with less-lethal rounds during curfew enforcement operations. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, presided over by District Judge Diane J. Humetewa, had granted summary judgment dismissing Saccoccio's excessive force claim.

The Ninth Circuit applied the standard Fourth Amendment analysis for excessive force claims, which requires courts to evaluate the objective reasonableness of the force used by weighing the amount of force deployed against the government's interest in public safety. This framework was established in the Supreme Court's decision in *Graham v. Connor* and has been consistently applied in subsequent cases.

In reviewing the district court's decision, the appeals court applied a de novo standard of review, meaning they examined the legal questions fresh without deference to the lower court's conclusions. The court also viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, which in this case was Saccoccio, citing the precedent set in *Martinez v. High* (9th Cir. 2024).

The incident occurred during a period of heightened tension in Phoenix and across the nation, as cities implemented emergency measures including mandatory curfews to address civil unrest. The specific circumstances surrounding the shooting of Saccoccio with less-lethal rounds became the central focus of the litigation.

Less-lethal rounds, also known as less-lethal ammunition, are designed to incapacitate or deter individuals without causing fatal injuries. However, their use still constitutes a significant application of force that must meet constitutional standards of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit's reversal suggests that the panel found the district court erred in concluding that Officer Gomez's use of less-lethal force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law. By reversing the summary judgment, the appeals court determined that factual disputes remain that should be resolved by a jury rather than decided by a judge as a matter of law.

This decision is part of ongoing litigation stemming from law enforcement responses to the civil unrest of 2020. Courts across the country have grappled with similar cases involving the use of force during protest situations, curfew enforcement, and crowd control operations.

The opinion was designated as a memorandum, meaning it is "not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3." This designation indicates that while the decision resolves the specific dispute between the parties, it will have limited precedential value for future cases.

Saccoccio's lawsuit originally included claims against multiple defendants, including the City of Phoenix as a municipal corporation, Police Chief Jeri Williams, and Douglas McBride. However, Officer Gomez appears to be the primary defendant-appellee in this appeal, suggesting the claims against other parties may have been resolved separately or are not part of this particular appeal.

The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings. With the summary judgment dismissal reversed, Saccoccio's excessive force claim will proceed toward trial unless the parties reach a settlement agreement. The district court will need to manage the case through additional discovery phases and potentially a jury trial to resolve the factual disputes that the Ninth Circuit determined were inappropriate for summary resolution.

This ruling reflects the ongoing judicial scrutiny of police use of force cases, particularly those arising from the civil unrest period of 2020. The Ninth Circuit's decision to reverse the summary judgment indicates that questions remain about the reasonableness of the force used against Saccoccio during the curfew enforcement operation.

The outcome of this case may influence how law enforcement agencies and courts approach similar situations involving crowd control and curfew enforcement during periods of civil unrest. The case demonstrates the complex legal and factual questions that arise when evaluating police use of force in rapidly evolving situations involving public safety concerns and constitutional rights.