“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A Nevada prisoner claimed prison officers used excessive force in throwing him to the ground and beating him.
What happened in this case?
Justin Edmiston was confined in Ely State prison in Nevada. When extracting him from his cell one day, he alleged, officers threw him to the ground and restrained him, during which time they allegedly beat him, resulting in “bleeding, two black eyes, and other injuries.” He sued them for use of excessive force in federal court.
The officials sought summary judgment against Edmiston on grounds of qualified immunity, but the district judge declined. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2026, Trump judge Patrick Bumatay and George W Bush judge Consuelo Callahan issued a 2-1 decision that reversed the court below and directed that the case be dismissed on grounds of qualified immunity. Based largely on video footage, the majority ruled that there were no disputed issues of fact and that the use of force was “brief, incidental and terminated “ after Edmiston was “clearly restrained.” Clinton judge Richard Paez dissented in Edmiston v Pickens.
Why did Judge Paez dissent?
Judge Paez strongly criticized the majority for “improperly” resolving “multiple factual disputes” in the officials’ favor based on “obstructed video footage that does not ‘blatantly contradict’” Edmiston’s version of events. Paez explained that whether the officials used excessive force should have been left to a jury to resolve, particularly since the video shows that the view of the encounter was “effectively blocked” by the position of the officers. The clearly visible disputes of fact, Paez concluded, “unequivocally preclude” summary judgment on immunity grounds against Edmisten.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Bumatay clearly deprived Justin Edmiston of a remedy for the excessive force he contends was used against him by prison officials. It also sets a bad precedent for evaluation of use of excessive force claims, particularly where video evidence is involved and a district court has declined to grant qualified immunity. This is especially of concern in the Ninth Circuit, which includes Nevada, California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. In addition, it illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.