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 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. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 12, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

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

2 

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 

Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 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 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 

Case: 22-11248 Document: 00517032276 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2024
No. 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