I. To avoid dismissal of a § 1983 excessive-force suit, must a plaintiff plead, as an element of her claim, that the officer had a "superior alternative" that would have avoided the harm?

II. To avoid dismissal under the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity, must the plaintiff identify an identical fact pattern, as the Fifth Circuit continues to hold, or can prior precedent clearly establish a constitutional violation despite some factual variation?

Whether a plaintiff in a § 1983 excessive-force suit must plead that an officer had a superior alternative to avoid dismissal, and whether prior precedent must involve an identical fact pattern to clearly establish a constitutional violation for qualified immunity purposes