The Fourth Amendment requires courts to evaluate excessive force claims based on the totality of the circumstances by sloshing through a "factbound morass." Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353, 1358 (2025) (internal quotations omitted). At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the courts accept all well-pleaded facts as true. Moreover, where courts consider video recordings, the video must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. This case asks whether the Fifth Circuit appropriately applied these standards when it dismissed a complaint alleging repeated tasings and granted qualified immunity to the officers involved. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Fifth Circuit departed from the Rule 12(b)(6) standard by crediting a video recording at the pleading stage rather than accepting the complaint's allegations as true.

2. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by adopting an expansive definition of active resistance that conflicts with several other circuits and lowers the constitutional threshold for the use of force when it morphed the third Graham factor into a test of whether an arrestee resists an "officer's mission or objective." (App. 14a).

3. Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision, issued one month after this Court's ruling in Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025), perpetuates the narrow temporal parsing of excessive force claims that Barnes rejected.

4. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in granting qualified immunity to officers who failed to intervene in the face of repeated tasings despite ample opportunity to prevent the constitutional violation.

Whether the Fifth Circuit improperly applied Rule 12(b)(6) standards and Graham factors in dismissing an excessive force complaint and granting qualified immunity