The opinion
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 25-20084 March 10, 2026
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Edgar Mosti,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Gregory Tullis, Detective; Caitlan Adams, Detective; Officer
Adams,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:23-CV-3378
______________________________
Before Richman, Higginson, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
This is an excessive-force case. The district court held that the officer
was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.
I
On June 9, 2023, Edgar Mosti attended a Duran Duran concert at the
Cynthia Woods Pavilion. Mosti and two female companions had too much to
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
No. 25-20084
drink and began walking toward an exit. The trio encountered Officer
Raymond Adams and Detectives Caitlan Adams and Gregory Tullis. When
Detective Tullis questioned Mosti about his inebriation, Mosti responded
with a tirade of expletives and racial slurs. Mosti was arrested for public
intoxication. In an ensuing struggle with the two detectives, Mosti and
Detective Gregory Tullis fell to the ground. The officers’ interactions with
Mosti were captured on video by the body cameras worn by the officers.
Mosti sued all three officers for excessive force, malicious arrest, and
First Amendment retaliation. Mosti subsequently dismissed Officer Adams
and Detective Adams from the suit, as well as his First Amendment and
malicious arrest claims against Detective Tullis. That left just the excessive
force claim against Detective Tullis. As to that claim, Mosti alleged that
Tullis intentionally swept his legs out from under him while Mosti was
handcuffed and being led away. In response, Tullis claimed that he
unintentionally fell alongside Mosti after Mosti attempted to knock
Detective Adams over by shoving her with his shoulder. Tullis also argued
that any use of force, intentional or otherwise, was reasonable under the
circumstances.
After reviewing video of the incident, the district court granted
summary judgment to Tullis. The order expressly incorporated the court’s
reasoning from an earlier hearing. At that hearing, the court noted “some
doubt on the video as to how the two people fell,” but maintained that “the
police were well within their qualified immunity.” Transcript of Summary
Judgment Hearing at 7, Dkt. No. 56.
Mosti timely appealed. Our review is de novo. We may “affirm on any
ground supported by the record . . . even if neither the appellant nor the
district court addressed the ground, so long as the argument was raised
2
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
No. 25-20084
below.” Gilbert v. Donahoe, 751 F.3d 303, 311 (5th Cir. 2014) (quotation
omitted).
II
“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability
in their individual capacity to the extent that their conduct does not violate
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Cass v. City of Abilene,
814 F.3d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). To avoid summary judgment
on qualified immunity, then, it was Mosti’s burden to show “(1) that [Tullis]
violated a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) that the
unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established at the time.” Rich v.
Palko, 920 F.3d 288, 294 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). So Mosti needs
both a viable excessive force claim and evidence that such a claim was clearly
established at the time of his injury to prevail.
To make out an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must show
“(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was
clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly
unreasonable.” Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (quotation omitted). The parties do not dispute that Mosti was
injured, satisfying the first prong. The question on appeal is therefore
whether Detective Tullis used “clearly excessive” force that was “clearly
unreasonable” when he and Mosti fell to the ground. Id.
This “inquiry must be fact-intensive.” Salazar v. Molina, 37 F.4th
278, 281 (5th Cir. 2022). Granularity is essential, as “[t]he timing, amount,
and form of a suspect's resistance are key to determining whether the force
used by an officer [in response] was appropriate or excessive.” Joseph on
behalf of Est. of Joseph v. Bartlett, 981 F.3d 319, 332 (5th Cir. 2020). As the
Supreme Court has put it, the question “depends very much on the facts of
each case, and thus police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless
3
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
No. 25-20084
existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue.” Kisela v.
Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 103 (2018) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Because
the video of the interactions between Mosti and Tullis “significantly aids our
understanding of these events” and “neither [the video’s] admissibility nor
its contents are in dispute,” we “view [the] purported facts in dispute ‘in the
light depicted by the video[].’” Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624, 625
n. 1 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
A
Mosti briefs this appeal as though it turns on a single issue: whether
Detective Tullis intentionally “swept” Mosti’s legs from under him. On
Mosti’s telling, the body camera footage shows Detective Tullis deliberately
bringing him to the ground with a sweep of his legs, and such an act qualifies
as per se unreasonable force, defeating Tullis’s qualified immunity defense.
We disagree. In a confused scene, the video evidence shows Mosti
resisting being handcuffed before Detectives Adams and Tullis finally
restrain him and begin leading him away. Officer Adams then stops to
retrieve Mosti’s dropped sunglasses and drink, before turning to follow.
While Officer Adams is facing downward, Detective Adams’s body camera
records Mosti pulling away from Detective Tullis. Detective Adams
submitted a declaration that at this point, Mosti “came very close to making
contact with [her].” When Officer Adams looks back up, his camera captures
Mosti stumbling away from Detective Adams and back towards Detective
Tullis. It is in response to Mosti’s resisting arrest that Detective Tullis sticks
out his leg, whether purposefully or inadvertently, bringing Mosti to the
ground.
Even assuming Mosti is correct that Detective Tullis purposefully
tripped him, that would not defeat qualified immunity. Either way, Tullis
acted reasonably. Again, consider what the video shows. An extremely
4
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
No. 25-20084
intoxicated Mosti yelled obscenities and racial slurs at officers at the slightest
provocation. Mosti then resisted efforts to handcuff him, continuing his
drunken misconduct throughout. Finally, even when handcuffed, Mosti used
his considerable bulk to lunge towards Detective Adams and send Detective
Tullis reeling on the backswing. It does not matter what Tullis subjectively
thought or intended. See Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839, 845 (5th Cir. 2009).
What matters is that a reasonable officer confronted with a noncompliant
suspect like Mosti, willing and able to resist officers even when handcuffed,
could conclude that bringing Mosti to a prone position was necessary to
effectuate his arrest. See Poole, 691 F.3d at 629. That is precisely the sort of
“measured and ascending” use of force that officers may reasonably take in
response to noncompliance. Buehler v. Dear, 27 F.4th 969, 984 (5th Cir.
2022) (quotation omitted). That is particularly so where, as here, video
evidence does not show the officers acting with any animus towards Mosti,
and instead shows that Mosti’s resistance created a situation where
reasonable force was necessary.
As the plaintiff, Mosti was required to show that Tullis used clearly
excessive force that was clearly unreasonable. The video does not show this
to be the case. Tullis is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
B
Mosti’s counterarguments are unconvincing. † First, Mosti compares
himself to fully compliant suspects who were nevertheless harmed by police.
_____________________
†
Mosti contends that Tullis waived any argument about the reasonableness of his
force by claiming in the district court that Mosti’s fall was unintentional. We disagree with
Mosti’s characterization of the pleadings. While it is true that Tullis largely focused on the
supposedly unintentional nature of Mosti’s fall, his briefing also argued that Tullis was
“justified in using some force, as he had to get [Mosti] under control.” Tullis also cited
this court’s decision in Craig v. Martin, 26 F.4th 699 (5th Cir. 2022), an intentional force
5
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
No. 25-20084
Blue Br. at 10–11 (citing Doss v. Helpenstell, 626 Fed. App’x. 453 (5th Cir.
2015) (per curiam) (unpublished), Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369 (5th Cir.
2013), Newman v. Guedre, 703 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2012), Deville v. Marcantel,
567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009), Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730
(5th Cir. 2000), and Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2017)). But none
of these authorities are on point. In Doss, the officer repeatedly punched a
motorist who passively held onto his steering wheel instead of obeying a
command to exit the car. 626 Fed App’x at 455. In Ramirez, officers tased a
suspect who was passively handcuffed and lying facedown on the ground. 716
F.3d at 372–73. In Newman, officers beat and then tased a suspect who was
not fighting back or actively resisting. 703 F.3d at 760. In Deville, police
smashed the car window of a grandmother who was waiting for family to pick
up her granddaughter after a minor traffic stop. 567 F.3d at 161–62. In
Goodson, the officers broke a suspect’s arm while tackling him before
intentionally jerking that arm back to handcuff him, causing damage likely
requiring a total shoulder replacement. 202 F.3d at 734. And finally, in
Hanks, the officer struck an unarmed suspect from behind after some
confusion about the officer’s commands. 853 F.3d at 742–43.
None of these cases establishes that it was objectively unreasonable
for Tullis to take Mosti to the ground as he did. Mosti was not passive or
helpless, as in Doss, Ramirez, Newman, or Hanks, but actively resisting
Detectives Adams and Tullis. Nor was the use of force grossly
disproportionate to the offense, as in Deville and Goodson. By contrast, Mosti
wrestled with officers throughout his arrest and pulled away from Detective
Tullis, and in return was taken to the ground to await backup. Cf. Poole, 691
F.3d at 629. None of Mosti’s cited authorities come close to meeting his
_____________________
case. We therefore do not think that Tullis waived any argument that his use of force was
reasonable if intentional.
6
Case: 25-20084 Document: 64-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/10/2026
No. 25-20084
burden of showing that Tullis’s force was “clearly excessive” and “clearly
unreasonable.” Deville, 567 F.3d at 167 (quotation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
7