The opinion
Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
January 12, 2024
No. 22-11248 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Cesar Salinas,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Steve Loud; Teresa Torres,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-837
______________________________
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Duncan, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In September 2020, Cesar Salinas was arrested in downtown Fort
Worth. Officers Steve Loud and Teresa Torres, two Fort Worth police
officers, approached Salinas while investigating a report of a woman who was
groped outside of a bar. The exchange escalated quickly, and Salinas ended
up on the ground in handcuffs soon after Officer Torres arrived on the scene.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 22-11248
Salinas alleges that, despite his general compliance, Officers Loud and Torres
slammed his head into the concrete, causing him injuries including a bloodied
lip.
Nearly two years after his arrest, Salinas sued Officers Loud and
Torres under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment
right to be free from excessive force. Salinas included references to and
screenshots of Officer Loud’s body camera footage in his complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity and attached
the body camera footage as support. The district court granted their motions.
We AFFIRM.
Motions to dismiss are reviewed on appeal de novo and generally rely
on just the pleadings. Terwilliger v. Reyna, 4 F.4th 270, 279 (5th Cir. 2021).
Unlike at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff need only plead “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face’” in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). However, when the pleadings incorporate evidence, such as
documents or videos, those items can also be considered. Jackson v. City of
Hearne, 959 F.3d 194, 204–05 (5th Cir. 2020). Importantly, while we usually
accept the plaintiff’s pleaded facts on such an appeal, we adopt the video over
the pleaded facts if it blatantly contradicts those allegations. Harmon v. City
of Arlington, 16 F.4th 1159, 1163 (5th Cir. 2021); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380 (2007).
Relevant here, the police were advised that one of two men, including
Salinas, may have committed a crime in terms of groping a woman down the
street. Officer Loud first approached Salinas, who was talking on his phone,
and asked for his identification. Salinas gave the officer his driver’s license.
Officer Loud told Salinas to come with him, but Salinas declined. Just then
2
Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 22-11248
Officer Torres arrived, and Officer Loud told her the situation. She took
Salinas’s shoulder and asked his name; he refused, contending that he had
already given his ID. He ignored her and continued on his phone. In a very
short time, she sought to handcuff him. While he alleges he was complying,
the video shows him resisting and turning away. He was knocked down on
the ground and began bleeding.
The officers contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The
Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . stressed the importance of resolving
immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Hunter v.
Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). In order to overcome qualified immunity
at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff must state a claim that (1) the
defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right at
issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged
misconduct. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). The plaintiff
must make this pleading for each defendant individually. See Darden v. City
of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722, 730 (5th Cir. 2018).
In this case, the question is whether Salinas sufficiently pleaded
excessive force. If the video blatantly contradicts what he pleaded, then it
can be considered in place of the complaint. There is no question that the
officers used force, but the question is whether it was “excessive.” Courts
may look to the severity of a plaintiff’s injury to determine whether the force
was excessive. See Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 549 (5th Cir. 2018) (per
curiam). Although Salinas now contends substantial harm, at the time, when
the officers called for medical attention, Salinas stated that he was not hurting
and refused any treatment.
The district court relied on the video to find that Salinas resisted and
did not comply (as opposed to his complaint’s contention), such that some
force was proper. We agree. Given that Salinas resisted and suffered at most
3
Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 22-11248
only minimal injuries, the force was not excessive. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
4