Whether plaintiffs must plead an available alternative that 'would have' avoided harm to defeat a motion to dismiss in a Section 1983 excessive-force claim

QUESTION PRESENTED After being called to assist a man suffering from a mental-health crisis who had doused himself with gasoline, police officers deployed their tasers on the man despite recognizing that “li]f we Tase him, he is going to light on fire.” Use of the tasers lit the man on fire and killed him. In this Section 1983 action brought by the victim’s survivors, the Fifth Circuit held—at the motion-to-dismiss stage—that the complaint failed to state an excessive-force claim as a matter of law because it did not identify an alternative course of action that “would have” resolved the situation without “potential tragedy.” The question presented is: To defeat a motion to dismiss in a Section 1983 suit alleging that officers used excessive force, must plaintiffs plead as an element of their claim that the officers had an available alternative that “would have” avoided the harm? (i)