Court Opinion

ID: 9918467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 01:00:47.924302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.877681
License: Public Domain

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