# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-11248

____________ 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 Te resa Torres, two Fort Worth police officers, approached Salinas while inve stigating 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 afte r Officer Torres arrived on the scene.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 12, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2024No. 22-11248

2 Salinas alleges that, despite his genera l compliance, Officers Loud and Torres slammed his head into the concrete, ca using 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 ba sis of qualified immunity and attached the body camera footage as support. The di strict 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 judgmen t 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 pleadi ngs 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. 20 20). Importantly, while we usually accept the plaintiff’s pleaded facts on su ch 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 advi sed 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 Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2024No. 22-11248

3 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 an d 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 turn ing away. He was knocked down on the ground and began bleeding. The officers contend that they are en titled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has “repeatedly . . . st ressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Hunter v. Bryant , 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991). In or der to overcome qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, a plai ntiff must state a claim that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional righ t, and (2) the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at th e 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 compla int. 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 (5 th 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 comp laint’s contention), such that some force was proper. We agree. Given that Salinas resisted and suffered at most Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2024No. 22-11248

4 only minimal injuries, the force was not excessive. Accordingly, we AFFIRM

. Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/12/2024