“Excessive force” claim under 42 USC § 1983; Whether videocam footage should have been considered in deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Qualified immunity; A constitutional violation; Graham v Connor; Whether plaintiff was “actively resisting” arrest; Whether plaintiff sufficiently pled an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment

The court held that the district court erred by considering the video footage of the encounter that gave rise to this § 1983 case when ruling on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings where the footage did not “blatantly contradict or utterly discredit” the allegations in plaintiff-Saalim’s complaint. It also concluded that defendant-Bretzloff was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case and that the municipal liability claim against the defendant-sheriff likewise should not have been dismissed. Saalim drove passengers to the Walmart pharmacy and parked his cab in a loading zone. Bretzloff, an off-duty deputy working security for Walmart, approached and asked to see his license. Bretzloff was wearing his full sheriff’s uniform. Saalim asked why he needed to produce his license, explaining that he was waiting for his passengers. Bretzloff eventually tried to pull him out of the taxi and threatened to tase him. Saalim exited the taxi. Bretzloff’s bodycam fell to the ground but continued to film. He tased Saalim and accused him of resisting. At no point in their “approximately three-minute interaction did Bretzloff tell Saalim that he was under arrest.” Saalim eventually pled no contest to disorderly conduct. He then filed this action against Bretzloff and others. On appeal, Saalim challenged the district court’s grant of defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court first noted it has consistently held that it “may only consider the video footage over the pleadings when ‘the videos are clear and “blatantly contradict[]” or “utterly discredit[]” the plaintiff’s version of events.’” If they do not, the court can only consider the pleadings on a Rule 12 motion. In this case, “the complaint faithfully describes the account depicted in the video footage, even using time stamps to denote the corresponding portions of the video it discusses.” As a result, the court found the district court erred in considering it and the court did not consider it on appeal. As to whether there was a constitutional violation, the court held that, considering “the totality of the circumstances, and the application of all three Graham factors, the use of force against Saalim was unreasonable. First, [he] had not been stopped for a severe crime. Second, he did not pose an immediate threat to Bretzloff’s safety. And third, . . . he did not actively resist arrest at any point in the interaction.” Further, given that he “was not actively resisting arrest, his right to be free from tasing and physical force was clearly established” at the time of the incident. Thus, the district court erred by ruling that Bretzloff was entitled to qualified immunity. But the court upheld the dismissal of Saalim’s equal-protection claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.