Hodge v. Engleman
90 F.4th 840 (5th Cir. 2024)
Holding
Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for fatally shooting a man who exited his car with a gun and pointed it at an officer after a brief pursuit, where bodycam footage blatantly contradicted the plaintiff's allegations; the court treated the district court's consideration of video evidence on a 12(b)(6) motion as an implicit conversion to summary judgment.
What This Case Is About
Officers Engleman and Litvin fatally shot Schaston Hodge after he refused to pull over, led them on a brief chase, and exited his car with a gun pointed at them. Hodge’s mother sued under § 1983. The district court dismissed based on qualified immunity after reviewing bodycam footage that the plaintiff had not attached to her complaint. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, treating the dismissal as an implicit conversion to summary judgment and holding that the video “blatantly contradicted” the plaintiff’s allegations.
The Facts
Schaston Hodge stopped at a stop sign and turned left without signaling. Officers Litvin and Engleman attempted to pull him over, but Hodge continued driving for several minutes despite lights and sirens until he reached his house. As Hodge parked in his driveway, Engleman jumped out and sprinted toward Hodge’s car with his gun drawn, ordering Hodge to show his hands and step out.
Hodge exited the car with a gun in his hands and pointed it at Engleman. Engleman fired, shooting Hodge, and dropped to the ground. Litvin, approaching behind Engleman and seeing him fall, also fired. In total, Engleman fired eleven times and Litvin eight, hitting Hodge sixteen times. The bodycam footage captured the entire event, showing Hodge raising and pointing a gun at Engleman and the gun lying on the ground next to Hodge afterward.
The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Hodge “attempted to comply” with commands, “turned towards the officer to comply,” and “posed no threat” — all of which the court found “blatantly contradicted” by the video.
What the Court Decided
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court first addressed a procedural issue: the district court had considered bodycam footage attached to the defendants’ motion to dismiss but not to the plaintiff’s complaint. Under Rule 12(d), this should have triggered conversion to summary judgment. The court found an implicit conversion occurred and that the plaintiff had adequate notice (over eight months) and opportunity to submit contrary evidence.
On the merits, applying Scott v. Harris, the court held that when video evidence “blatantly contradicts” a plaintiff’s version of events, the court should view the facts “in the light depicted by the videotape.” The bodycam footage clearly showed Hodge pointing a gun at Engleman, demolishing the complaint’s allegations that Hodge posed no threat and was trying to comply.
On qualified immunity, the court found no constitutional violation. Under the Graham v. Connor factors, the officers’ use of deadly force was reasonable: Hodge fled from police, refused to stop, and then pointed a gun at an officer. The officers made “split-second judgments” in response to a clear and immediate threat of serious harm.
Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case
Hodge v. Engleman demonstrates the power of body camera footage in § 1983 litigation — it can be dispositive at the earliest stages. Key takeaways:
- Video can override your complaint. Under Scott v. Harris, if video “blatantly contradicts” your version of events, the court adopts the video’s version. Do not allege facts your own video evidence disproves.
- Implicit conversion is allowed. Courts can consider video evidence on a motion to dismiss by converting it to summary judgment, even without explicit notice, as long as you had adequate time and opportunity.
- Pointing a gun at an officer is virtually dispositive. When video shows a suspect pointing a weapon at an officer, the use of deadly force will almost always be found reasonable. The number of shots fired (here, 19 total) does not matter once the threat is established.
- No predicate violation means no Monell claim. With no constitutional violation by the officers, claims against the city and other entities necessarily fail.
Key Takeaway
When body camera footage clearly shows a suspect pointing a gun at a police officer, a deadly force claim under § 1983 will not survive. Courts adopt the video’s version of events over contrary allegations in the complaint. Before filing suit, carefully review all available video — if it undermines your version of events, your case faces dismissal at the earliest stage, regardless of how your complaint is drafted.