Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CESAR SALINAS, § 

 §

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

 § 

 § 

STEVE LOUD, and § 

TERESA TORRES, § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

COMES NOW, Cesar Salinas, complaining of Steven Loud and Teresa Torres, and 

for causes of action will respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

“[A] constitutional violation occurs when an officer tases, 

strikes, or violently slams an arrestee who is not actively 

resisting arrest.”

Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas, 880 F.3d 722, 731 (5th Cir. 2018).

4:22-cv-837

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 27 PageID 1
Page 2 of 27

SUMMARY

On September 20, 2020, Defendant Teresa Torres and Defendant Steve Loud, 

officers with the Fort Worth Police Department, violently slammed Plaintiff Cesar Salinas 

face first into the pavement causing immediate injuries to his face. At the time, Mr. Salinas 

had not been told he was detained or under arrest and had complied with the request to 

hand over his identification as the officers investigated a misdemeanor crime which Mr. 

Salinas had not been identified as the culprit and the criminal charges were later 

dismissed. Defendant Torres asked Mr. Salinas for his name. Mr. Salinas directed 

Defendant Torres to his identification which he had already handed Defendant Loud. This 

apparently upset Defendant Torres, as without warning, Defendant Torres then grabbed 

Mr. Salinas’ phone in his hand and swung Mr. Salinas to his right. Defendant Loud then 

grabbed ahold of Mr. Salinas’ other arm and the two officers violently slammed Mr. 

Salinas’s face into the pavement causing immediate injuries. Mr. Salinas now files this 

lawsuit for violation of his right to be free from unreasonable seizures by way of excessive 

force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

I.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Cesar Salinas is a resident of Denton County, Texas. 

2. Defendant Steve Loud hereinafter (“Defendant Loud” or “Loud") is an 

individual residing in Tarrant County, Texas and is a police officer with the City of Fort 

Worth Police Department and may be served at his place of employment at the City of 

Fort Worth Police Department located at 505 W. Felix, Fort Worth, TX 76115, or wherever 

he may be found. Defendant Loud is being sued in his individual capacity. 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 27 PageID 2
Page 3 of 27

3. Defendant Teresa Torres hereinafter (“Defendant Torres” or “Torres") is an 

individual residing in Tarrant County, Texas and is a police officer with the City of Fort 

Worth Police Department and may be served at her place of employment at the City of 

Fort Worth Police Department located at 505 W. Felix, Fort Worth, TX 76115, or wherever 

she may be found. Defendant Torres is being sued in her individual capacity. 

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 and § 1343 since Plaintiff is suing for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

5. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391 because the Defendants reside in the Northern District of Texas and all of the 

causes of action accrued in the Northern District of Texas. 

III. 

FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS

6. On September 20, 2020, Defendant Officers Steve Loud and Teresa Torres 

made contact with Plaintiff Cesar Salinas while investigating a complaint made by a 

female that she was groped by an unknown Hispanic male outside of a bar.

7. Plaintiff Cesar Salinas was at a bar in downtown Fort Worth playing pool.

8. Mr. Salinas went outside of the bar to smoke from his electronic cigarette.

9. Defendant Loud came up behind Mr. Salinas and asked to speak with him.

10. Mr. Salinas had not been identified by anyone as being the person who 

groped the female.

11. At no point did the female identify Mr. Salinas as the person who grabbed 

her, and the charges related to this accusation were subsequently dismissed.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 27 PageID 3
Page 4 of 27

12. At no point did Defendant Loud tell Mr. Salinas he was under arrest or being 

detained. 

13. Mr. Salinas pulled out his phone and called his friend who was inside the 

bar as he was alarmed at being suddenly accosted by Defendant Loud. 

14. Defendant Loud asked for Mr. Salinas’ identification.

15. Mr. Salinas complied by pulling his identification out of his wallet and 

handing it to Defendant Loud without any sort of refusal or complaint.

16. Defendant Loud asked Mr. Salinas to walk over to a police car. 

17. Again, Defendant Loud had not informed Mr. Salinas of why he was 

speaking with him, why he needed to turn over his identification which he already done, 

why he was being asked to go to a police car, or that he was being detained or arrested.

18. Mr. Salinas stated that he did not need to walk over to the police car as he 

was confused why he had been suddenly approached and questioned by a police officer,

since he had just exited a bar to smoke his electronic cigarette and had already complied 

with the request to hand over his identification.

19. Mr. Salinas told Defendant Loud that he would stand right where they were 

and wait, giving no indication he was going to flee, especially since Defendant Loud had 

his identification.

20. Mr. Salinas asked Defendant Loud why he needed to walk to the police car 

and Defendant Loud told him he would explain when they got there.

21. Mr. Salinas still had not been told why Defendant Loud was talking to him 

or had requested his identification, which Mr. Salinas complied with handing over.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 27 PageID 4
Page 5 of 27

22. Mr. Salinas told Defendant Loud that Defendant Loud had initially told him 

to stay where he was at on the sidewalk and that was what he was going to do, adding “I’m 

not even running, I’m not even resisting.” 

23. Defendant Loud did not repeat his request to walk to the police car and 

appeared content with Mr. Salinas standing where he was on the sidewalk.

24. Defendant Loud still had not informed Mr. Salinas that he was being 

detained, arrested, or even the reason for his contact.

25. Still, Mr. Salinas had complied with the request to hand over his 

identification and was waiting as instructed.

26. Defendant Officer Torres then approached.

27. Defendant Loud told Defendant Torres that either Mr. Salinas or another 

male had groped a female but that the female had not identified who it was at that point.

28. Defendant Loud then told Defendant Torres that Mr. Salinas was refusing 

to go be identified, which was not true.

29. At no time was Mr. Salinas ever told what was going on and was only asked

to go to a police car without any explanation, which he declined to do.

30. At no time was Mr. Salinas ever told what was going on and was simply 

asked to hand over his identification and wait on the sidewalk, which he did. 

31. As Mr. Salinas had not been told he was detained or under arrest and only 

that Defendant Loud wanted to talk to him, he had no reason to believe he had to walk 

over to a police car given that he was complying with the officer by turning over his 

identification.

32. Mr. Salinas remained on the phone attempting to contact his friend.

33. Defendant Torres approached Mr. Salinas and tapped him on the shoulder. 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 27 PageID 5
Page 6 of 27

34. Defendant Torres did not tell Mr. Salinas he was being detained, he was 

under arrest, or give any other indication why she was contacting him.

35. Defendant Torres asked for Mr. Salinas for his name. 

36. Mr. Salinas told Defendant Torres that he had just given Officer Loud his 

identification out of his wallet. 

37. Mr. Salinas was standing stationary giving no indication he would flee.

38. Mr. Salinas was not holding a weapon and gave no indication he was going 

to use a weapon.

39. Mr. Salinas was not resisting as he had already complied with the request to 

turn over his identification and was simply standing still while holding his phone to his 

ear attempting to talk to his friend.

40. Mr. Salinas had not been told by Defendant Loud, Defendant Torres, or any 

other law enforcement officer that he was being detained, that he was under arrest, or the 

reason for this police contact.

41. By law, this was simply a consensual encounter which Mr. Salinas had not 

been told he was unable to terminate if he so chose.

42. Mr. Salinas was standing with his right hand holding his cell phone up to 

his ear as can be seen from the screenshot of Defendant Loud’s bodycam footage at the 

1:29 mark below.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 6 of 27 PageID 6
Page 7 of 27

43. Defendant Torres then stated, “I’m taking over,” and grabbed Mr. Salinas’ 

phone without explanation or warning, as can be seen on Defendant Loud’s bodycam 

footage just frames later at the 06:59:06 mark of the video below. Mr. Salinas’s hand 

holding his phone to his ear is identified with a green arrow and Defendant Torres’ hand 

grabbing the phone without warning is identified with a red arrow.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 7 of 27 PageID 7
Page 8 of 27

44. Without explanation or warning, Defendant Torres then immediately 

yanked the phone backwards pulling it away from Mr. Salinas’ ear, as can be depicted in 

the below screenshot from Defendant Loud’s bodycam footage just frames later at the 

06:59:07 mark of the video. The screenshot shows Mr. Salinas’ arm bending backward 

and the phone being pulled away from his ear, revealing his ear which was previously 

hidden from view by the phone in the screenshot described in paragraph 43, supra.

45. Defendant Torres repeatedly asked Mr. Salinas “what is your name?”

46. However, as Mr. Salinas had not been told he was being detained, had not 

been told he was under arrest, and had not even been told why he was being contacted by 

the police this was still legally a consensual encounter which did not require Mr. Salinas 

to identify himself to Defendant Torres.

47. Despite that fact, Mr. Salinas had already handed his identification over to 

Defendant Loud and communicated that to Defendant Torres.

48. Defendant Torres continued to pull Mr. Salinas’ phone without explanation.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 8 of 27 PageID 8
Page 9 of 27

49. Defendant Torres did not give Mr. Salinas any commands to drop his phone, 

let go of his phone, or to put his hands behind his back.

50. Defendant Torres simply said “stop, stop” when Mr. Salinas was merely

standing holding his phone in his right hand and his electronic cigarette in his left hand.

51. Below is a screen capture of Defendant Torres grabbing for Mr. Salinas’ 

phone in his right hand while he held his electronic cigarette in his left hand as Mr. Salinas 

points out what is happening to Defendant Loud. 

52. Without giving Mr. Salinas any further commands with which he could 

comply or even asking Mr. Salinas to hand over his phone, Defendant Torres then swung 

Mr. Salinas to his right in a spinning motion.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 9 of 27 PageID 9
Page 10 of 27

53. When Defendant Torres grabbed Mr. Salinas’ phone, yanked it backwards, 

and then spun Mr. Salinas around, (1) Mr. Salinas had not been identified as the person 

who had committed any crime, (2) Mr. Salinas had not been told he was being detained, 

(3) Mr. Salinas had not been told he was under arrest, (4) Mr. Salinas had complied with 

a request to hand over his identification despite this simply being a consensual encounter, 

(5) Mr. Salinas was not holding a weapon, (6) Mr. Salinas was standing stationary giving 

no indication he was going to flee, (7) Mr. Salinas was not acting aggressively or 

presenting a threat as he was simply standing stationary talking on his cell phone after 

handing over his identification, and (8) Mr. Salinas was not actively resisting arrest and 

was not even passively resisting arrest as he was simply holding onto his phone when 

Defendant Torres without warning grabbed it without giving any commands to drop or 

hand over the phone and without telling Mr. Salinas to put his hands behind his back or 

that he was being detained or arrested.

54. Below is a screenshot from Defendant Loud’s bodycam video showing 

Defendant Torres swinging Mr. Salinas to his right by his arm. Mr. Salinas’ arm can be 

seen outstretched as Defendant Torres is holding it and pulling. Mr. Salinas’ outstretched 

arm which is being yanked and swung by Defendant Torres is identified with a green 

arrow.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 10 of 27 PageID 10
Page 11 of 27

55. Mr. Salinas never pulled his arm away from Defendant Torres but simply 

maintained his balance after he was slung without warning or explanation and without 

being given any commands to comply with or being told he was detained or under arrest.

56. Defendant Loud then grabbed Mr. Salinas’ left hand and arm.

57. Defendants Torres and Loud maintained a grip on Mr. Salinas’ arms. 

58. Mr. Salinas never pulled away from Defendant Torres or Defendant Loud.

59. Neither Defendant Torres nor Defendant Loud gave Mr. Salinas an order to 

put his hands behind his back, to get down, to drop his phone, or any other order for him 

to comply other than simply saying “stop.”

60. Mr. Salinas responded that he wasn’t doing anything as all he had done was 

maintain his balance so as not to be thrown face first into the ground when he had not 

been given any commands to comply with or been told he was detained, under arrest, or 

even the reason the police were talking to him.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 11 of 27 PageID 11
Page 12 of 27

61. Defendants Loud and Torres then slammed Mr. Salinas face first into the 

ground, causing Mr. Torres’ face to strike the hard pavement.

62. Below is a screen capture of Mr. Salinas face down on the hard pavement. 

63. Officer Loud taunted, “that’s what we’re going to do, you hear me,” after the 

Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, despite never telling Mr. 

Salinas he was detained, under arrest, the reason for the contact, or that he needed to 

place his hands behind his back or hand over his phone. 

64. Mr. Salinas’ face began bleeding as a result of the Defendants slamming him 

face first into the pavement. 

65. Defendant Torres placed a spit mask over Mr. Salinas’ face as he began to 

bleed heavily.

66. Below is a screen capture of Mr. Salinas bleeding heavily with a spit mask 

placed over his face. 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 12 of 27 PageID 12
Page 13 of 27

67. Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas to the ground so hard that his hat was 

knocked off his head.

68. Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas to the ground so hard that the bright green 

pocketknife which had remained closed in his pocket became dislodged and flew out on 

the ground.

69. Below is a picture of Mr. Salinas’ hat and bright green pocketknife on the 

ground.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 13 of 27 PageID 13
Page 14 of 27

70. While on the ground, Mr. Salinas told the Defendants that he had a vape.

71. One officer asked, “What’s he got in his hand.”

72. Another officer responded, “Is that a vape.”

73. Another officer answered, “I don’t know.” 

74. The presence of a pocketknife was not mentioned by Defendant Loud until

Mr. Salinas was placed in the back of a police vehicle approximately four minutes and 

thirty seconds after Mr. Salinas was slammed on the ground by both of the Defendants.

75. At no point prior to Mr. Salinas being placed in a police vehicle did 

Defendant Loud or any other officer mention the presence of a knife.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 14 of 27 PageID 14
Page 15 of 27

76. Defendant Loud did not draw attention to the presence of a potential 

weapon until approximately four minutes and thirty seconds after Mr. Salinas had been 

slammed on the ground. 

77. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, he was only

suspected of non-violent misdemeanor offense which he had not even been identified as 

being the culprit. 

78. At no point prior to being slammed face first on the ground did Defendant 

Torres or Defendant Loud inform Mr. Salinas he was being detained or under arrest. 

79. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, Mr. Salinas 

was not evading arrest as he had provided identification upon request and did not make 

any motions indicating an attempted to escape as he simply stood with his phone in one 

hand and his electronic cigarette in his other hand. 

80. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, this was a 

consensual encounter as Defendants never informed Mr. Salinas he was under arrest or 

being detained. 

81. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, Mr. Salinas 

was not actively resisting as he did not even attempt to pull his arm away from Defendant 

Torres or Defendant Loud.

82. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, Mr. Salinas 

was not a danger to Defendant Torres, Defendant Loud, or any other person as Mr. Salinas 

never raised his voice nor made any verbal threats toward Defendant Torres or any other 

person and was not holding a weapon as he had his phone in one hand raised to his ear 

as he was speaking on it and his electronic cigarette in his other hand.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 15 of 27 PageID 15
Page 16 of 27

83. Defendant Torres fabricated a version of events in her offense report in 

order to justify her illegal use of force against Mr. Salinas.

84. A screen capture of the incident report is included below.

85. Defendant Torres stated in her incident report that “Officer Loud was able 

to grab [Mr. Salinas’] left hand and arm to conduct an arm bar take down, causing Cesar’s 

face to hit the cement sidewalk. Officer Loud observed a folding knife in [Mr. Salinas’] left 

hand, which was still folded. “

86. Contrary to what Defendant Torres wrote in her report, the presence of a 

pocketknife was not mentioned by Officer Loud until approximately four minutes and 

thirty seconds after Defendant Torres slammed Mr. Salinas on the ground.1

87. Contrary to what Defendant Torres wrote in her report, Mr. Salinas was not 

holding his green pocketknife in his hand, but rather, it was in his pocket and 

unobservable by either Defendant Torres or Defendant Loud, as can be seen by Officer 

Loud’s bodycam footage.

88. Contrary to what Defendant Torres wrote in her report, the screen capture 

below from Officer Loud’s bodycam footage clearly shows that Mr. Salinas only held his 

black and pink electronic cigarette and cellphone in his hands prior to and at the time 

when Defendant Torres slammed Mr. Salinas on the ground. 

1 Defendant Torres even acknowledged in the incident report that the pocketknife was still folded at the time it was 

observed.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 16 of 27 PageID 16
Page 17 of 27

89. As a result of being slammed onto the ground, Mr. Salinas suffered physical 

injuries, and physical pain and suffering including a laceration to his lip resulting in 

extensive bleeding, a contusion to his left cheek, a knot above his left eyebrow, and 

swelling on his head.

90. Defendant Torres and Defendant Loud were at all times acting under the 

color of law. 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 17 of 27 PageID 17
Page 18 of 27

IV.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count One

Excessive Force

Violation of the Fourth Amendment Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Against Defendants Torres and Loud

91. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the 

above paragraphs as if fully repeated herein.

92. Acting under the color of law, Defendants Torres and Loud deprived Mr. 

Salinas of the rights and privileges secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution and by other laws of the United States to 

be free from illegal and unreasonable seizures by the use of force. 

93. Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

94. The amount of force used by Defendants Torres and Loud against Mr. 

Salinas as described above, specifically but not limited to, when Defendant Torres and

Loud both slammed Mr. Salinas face first into the pavement was objectively unreasonable 

under the circumstances and inflicted unnecessary injury, pain, and suffering upon Mr. 

Salinas.

95. A seizure is unreasonable if it results in (a) an injury, (b) that resulted 

directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (c) the excessiveness 

was clearly unreasonable.

96. A constitutional violation occurs when an officer tases, strikes, or violently 

slams an arrestee who is not actively resisting arrest. Darden v. City of Fort

Worth, Texas, 880 F.3d 722, 731 (5th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). 

97. Fifth Circuit case law makes clear that when an arrestee is not actively 

resisting arrest the degree of force an officer can employ is reduced. Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 18 of 27 PageID 18
Page 19 of 27

98. Fifth Circuit case law also makes clear that it is objectively unreasonable for 

an officer to slam an arrestee’s face when the arrestee “was not resisting arrest or 

attempting to flee.” Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492, 502 (5th Cir. 2008). 

99. Additionally, Fifth Circuit case law is clear that an exercise of force that is 

reasonable at one moment can become unreasonable in the next if the justification for the 

use of force has ceased. Lytle v Bexar Cty., Tex.., 560 F.3d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 2009).

100. Although officers may need to use “physical force ... to effectuate [a] 

suspect's compliance” when he refuses to comply with commands during a traffic stop, 

the officers still must assess “the relationship between the need and the amount of force 

used.” Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2002); quoting Deville v. 

Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir. 2009).

101. Where an individual’s conduct amounts to mere “passive resistance,” use of 

force is not justified. Trammell v. Fruge, 868 F.3d 332, 341 (5th Cir. 2017) (finding that 

the plaintiff pulling his arm away from officers amounted to only passive resistance and 

did not justify the use of force against plaintiff); see also Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738, 

746 (5th Cir. 2017) (determining the plaintiff’s initial refusals to follow a police officer’s 

instructions amounted to, “at most, passive resistance” and did not justify the officers use 

of a “ ‘half spear’ takedown” against the plaintiff); Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 

F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff pulling arm away from an officer after the officer 

grabbed the plaintiff’s arm was only minimal resistance, if at all, and did not justify two 

officers tackling the plaintiff).

102. Mr. Salinas was not suspected of committing a felony offense when 

Defendant Torres slammed him face first into the pavement.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 19 of 27 PageID 19
Page 20 of 27

103. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, he was only 

suspected of non-violent misdemeanor offense which he had not even been identified as 

being the culprit. 

104. As Mr. Salinas was only suspected of a minor offense this “militates” against 

the use of force. Trammell, 868 F.3d 332 at 340 citing Reyes v. Bridgwater, 362 

Fed.Appx. 403, 407 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010) (finding the “severity” factor from Graham 

“militated” against a use of force where the alleged crime was a misdemeanor).

105. At no point prior to being slammed face first on the ground did Defendant 

Torres or Defendant Loud inform Mr. Salinas he was being detained or under arrest. 

106. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, Mr. Salinas 

was not evading arrest as he had provided identification upon request and did not make 

any motions indicating an attempted to escape as he simply stood with his phone in one 

hand and his electronic cigarette in his other hand. 

107. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, Mr. Salinas 

was not actively resisting as he did not even attempt to pull his arm away from Defendant 

Torres or Defendant Loud.

108. When Defendants slammed Mr. Salinas face first on the ground, Mr. Salinas 

was not a danger or threat to Defendant Torres, Defendant Loud, or any other person as 

Mr. Salinas never raised his voice nor made any verbal threats toward Defendant Torres 

or any other person and was not holding a weapon as he had his phone in one hand raised 

to his ear as he was speaking on it and his electronic cigarette in his other hand.

109. Mr. Salinas was not actively resisting arrest prior to when Defendant Torres 

slammed him to the ground. 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 20 of 27 PageID 20
Page 21 of 27

110. In Trammel, the Fifth Circuit found there was a factual dispute as to 

whether Trammel was actively resisting arrest throughout his encounter with the police. 

111. According to the Court in Trammel,

Officers may consider a suspect's refusal to comply with instructions ... in 

assessing whether physical force is needed to effectuate the suspect's 

compliance. However, officers must assess not only the need for force, but 

also ‘the relationship between the need and the amount of force used.’ Id. 

(citations omitted) (quoting Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir. 

1999)). For instance, where an individual's conduct amounts to mere 

“passive resistance,” use of force is not justified. (quoting Hanks, 853 F.3d 

at 746 (determining the plaintiff's initial refusals to follow a police officer's 

instructions amounted to, “at most, passive resistance” and did not justify 

the officers use of a half spear’ takedown” against the plaintiff)); (quoting 

Deville, 567 F.3d at 168 (the plaintiff's refusal to get out of her car before 

her husband arrived on the scene constituted passive resistance)).

Trammel, 868 F.3d at 341. 

112. In Trammel, the Court went on to discuss Goodson, a Fifth Circuit case 

where two police officers stopped an individual believing he matched the description of 

an individual suspected of assault. Goodson, 202 F.3d 730 at 733.

113. In Goodson, one of the officers instructed the plaintiff to “put his hands on 

the [police] car.” Id. at 734. 

114. The plaintiff in Goodson claimed that before he could comply the officer 

grabbed his arm. Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 21 of 27 PageID 21
Page 22 of 27

115. The plaintiff stated, “he pulled his arm away from [the officer] in surprise 

and stumbled back in an attempt to regain his balance and maintain a little distance from 

the police officers.” Id.

116. Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed the two officers tackled him to the ground. 

Id.

117. In reversing the district court’s summary judgment based on qualified 

immunity, the Fifth Circuit held a fact question “existed as to the objective reasonableness 

of the force used” under the circumstances. Id. at 740.

118. Significantly, the Court did not describe the plaintiff’s decision to pull his 

arm away from the officers as resistance. Id. 

119. And given the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain or frisk the 

plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not fleeing, the Court declined to conclude that the 

plaintiff’s decision to pull away from the officers justified the amount of force used. Id. 

120. In Trammel, the Fifth Circuit explained,

Just as in Goodson, it appears that Trammel's only physical resistance prior 

to being tackled was his attempt to pull his arm away. In fact, the dash cam 

footage reveals that Trammel did not even use much force in pulling away 

from the officers; although Trammel can clearly be seen moving his arm in 

the opposite direction from Officer Fruge, he is only able to move it away by 

a few inches such that the officer's hand never lost contact with Trammel's 

arm. It also appears that Officer Fruge himself was not pulled forward. 

Trammel was neither aggressive nor violent toward the officers prior to 

being tackled. As discussed above, Trammel was suspected of only a minor 

offense, and there was little indication he would flee. It is also unclear 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 22 of 27 PageID 22
Page 23 of 27

whether a reasonable officer would have thought that Trammel posed a 

danger to himself and others. Thus, as in Goodson, we conclude that a 

reasonable jury could conclude that the officers’ use of force was clearly 

excessive to the circumstances.

Trammel, 868 F. 3d at 342.

121. The Fifth Circuit continued in Trammel by stating, 

[M]oreover, even if Trammel's decision to pull his arm away from the 

officers can be characterized as some degree of resistance that would justify 

an officer's use of force, the quickness with which the officers resorted to 

tackling Trammel to the ground militates against a finding of 

reasonableness. This Court has several times found that the speed with 

which an officer resorts to force is relevant in determining whether that 

force was excessive to the need. (quoting Newman, 703 F.3d at 763 

((holding that disputes of fact were material because “a reasonable jury 

could find that the degree of force used was not justified where the officer 

‘engaged in very little, if any, negotiation’ with the suspect and ‘instead 

quickly resorted to’ ” force)); quoting Deville, 567 F.3d at 168 (determining 

that ‘[a] reasonable jury could infer from [the plaintiff's] deposition 

testimony that [the defendant officer] engaged in very little, if any, 

negotiation with [the plaintiff]—and find that he instead quickly resorted to 

breaking her driver's side window and dragging her out of the vehicle”)

Id. at 342. 

122. The Fifth Circuit in Trammel continued by stating,

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 23 of 27 PageID 23
Page 24 of 27

Given that only three seconds elapsed between Officer Fruge's initial 

request that Trammel place his hands behind his back and when Officers 

Fruge, Garza, and Neveu tackled Trammel, we find that a reasonable jury 

could infer that the officers used very little, if any, negotiation before 

resorting to physical violence, and that the officers’ conduct did not 

constitute the required “measured and ascending” actions calibrated to 

Trammel's conduct. Poole, 691 F.3d at 629 (quoting Galvan v. City of San 

Antonio, 435 Fed.Appx. 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2010)). Accordingly, we hold that 

a reasonable jury could find that Trammel's pulling his arms away from the 

officers, along with the other circumstances of Trammel's arrest, did not 

justify the officers’ decision to tackle Trammel to the ground. Thus, there is 

a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers’ use of force was 

objectively unreasonable.

Id. at 342. 

123. Here, as depicted in Defendant Loud’s bodycam footage, there is less 

resistance than was even found in Trammel and Goodson, as Mr. Salinas’ did not even 

attempt to pull his arms away from Defenant Torres or Defendant Loud prior to being 

slammed face first into the pavement. Trammel, 868 F.3d at 331; Goodson, 202 F.3d at 

734. 

124. A reasonable officer would know that the use of force is clearly excessive

when engaging with citizens such as Mr. Salinas who was not threatening any officer or 

other person, was only suspected of a misdemeanor offense, was not attempting to flee, 

was at not actively resisting arrest, and who the use of force of being slammed on the 

ground was not warranted.

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 24 of 27 PageID 24
Page 25 of 27

125. A reasonable officer would know that the use of force is clearly unreasonable

when engaging with citizens such as Mr. Salinas who was not threatening any officer or 

other person, was only being questioned about a misdemeanor offense, was not 

attempting to flee, was not actively resisting arrest, and who the use of force of being 

slammed into the ground was not warranted.

126. A reasonable officer in Defendants’ position would know that slamming Mr. 

Salinas to the ground was objectively unreasonable when Mr. Salinas was only being 

questioned about a misdemeanor offense, was not attempting to flee, was not actively 

resisting arrest is clearly unreasonable and excessive.

127. As a direct result of the force used against him by Defendant Torres and 

Defendant Loud, Mr. Salinas has suffered physical injury, pain, and mental anguish for 

which he sues herein. 

128. These injuries were not caused by any other means.

V. 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

129. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the 

above paragraphs as if fully repeated herein.

130. When viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendant Torres and 

Defendant Loud at the time of the occurrence, said Defendants’ conduct involved an 

extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm 

to others.

131. As a direct, proximate, and producing cause and the intentional, egregious, 

malicious conduct by Defendant Torres and Defendant Loud which was recklessly or 

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 25 of 27 PageID 25
Page 26 of 27

callously indifferent to Plaintiff’s protected rights, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive 

damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

VI. 

DAMAGES

132. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the 

above paragraphs as if fully repeated herein.

133. Plaintiff’s injuries were a foreseeable event. Those injuries were directly and 

proximately caused by Defendant Torres and Defendant Loud both using excessive and 

unreasonable force against Plaintiff by slamming him face first into the pavement.

134. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all actual damages allowed by law. 

Plaintiff contends said Defendants’ conduct constitutes malice, evil intent, or reckless or 

callous indifference to Plaintiff’s legally protected rights. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to 

punitive damages against Defendant Torres and Defendant Loud. 

135. As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence which made the basis of 

this lawsuit, Mr. Salinas was forced to suffer:

(a) Physical injuries, and (b) Physical pain and suffering.

136. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, Plaintiff seeks to recover, and 

requests an award of punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of court.

VII. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES

137. If Plaintiff prevails in this action on claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by 

settlement or otherwise, Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands attorney’s fees under 

42 U.S.C. § 1988.

VIII. 

JURY REQUEST

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 26 of 27 PageID 26
Page 27 of 27

138. Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that judgment be 

rendered against Defendants, for an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of 

this Court. Plaintiff further prays for all other relief, both legal and equitable, to which he 

may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Scott H. Palmer

SCOTT H. PALMER,

Texas Bar No. 00797196

/s/ James P. Roberts

JAMES P. ROBERTS,

Texas Bar No. 24105721

/s/ Breanta Boss

BREANTA BOSS,

Texas Bar No. 24115768

SCOTT H. PALMER, P.C.

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 540

Addison, Texas 75001

Telephone: 214.987.4100

Facsimile: 214.922.9900

scott@scottpalmerlaw.com

james@scottpalmerlaw.com

breanta@scottpalmerlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:22-cv-00837-P Document 1 Filed 09/19/22 Page 27 of 27 PageID 27