United States v. Lopez-Canales

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting plaintiff’s assertion that prison guards struck his groin when a video recording was “fairly comprehensive” and refutes the claim
• affirming grant of summary judgment for guards who made “brief contact with the genital area over clothing during a pat-down” because contact was incidental to legitimate search of inmate’s groin for weapons or contraband
• where video evidence indisputably established that allegations in grievance were false, reasonable jury could not find that grievance was nonfrivolous
• \Only nonfrivolous prisoner's grievances against prison officials are protected by the First Amendment.\
• no triable dispute about excessive force to groin based on video evidence
• “A prison guard carrying out a prison security measure can violate the Eight Amendment in one of two ways: by maliciously inflicting pain or injury, see Guitron v. Paul, 675 F.3d 1044, 1046 (7th Cir. 2012

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).