Livingston v. Texas

What This Case Is About

Officers Engleman and Litvin shot and killed Schaston Hodge after a brief car chase. Hodge’s mother sued under § 1983 for excessive force. The district court reviewed the officers’ body camera footage — which the plaintiff had not attached to her complaint — and dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, treating the dismissal as an implicit conversion to summary judgment.

The Facts

Schaston Hodge was driving home when he failed to signal a turn. Officers Engleman and Litvin attempted to pull him over, but Hodge continued driving for several minutes with lights and sirens behind him until he reached his house. As Hodge parked in his driveway, Engleman jumped out and sprinted toward the car with his gun drawn, ordering Hodge to show his hands and exit. Hodge exited the car with a gun in his hands and pointed it at Engleman. Engleman fired eleven times. Litvin, approaching behind and seeing Engleman drop to the ground, fired eight times. Hodge was hit sixteen times and died.

Hodge’s mother sued, alleging in her complaint that Hodge “attempted to comply” with commands and “turned towards the officer to comply” and “posed no threat of harm.” The officers attached body camera footage to their motion to dismiss. The footage directly contradicted the complaint, clearly showing Hodge pointing a gun at the officers.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because the district court considered evidence outside the pleadings (the body camera footage), the court treated the ruling as an implicit conversion to summary judgment under Rule 12(d). The court found this was proper because the plaintiff had more than ten days’ notice that the court was considering the video evidence and had ample opportunity to submit her own evidence.

Applying Scott v. Harris, the court held that when video evidence “blatantly contradicts” a plaintiff’s allegations, the court should view the facts “in the light depicted by the videotape.” The body camera footage covered the entire incident and clearly showed Hodge raising a gun and pointing it at Engleman. Thus, the officers’ use of deadly force was reasonable: “an officer who reasonably believes that the suspect poses a threat of serious harm to the officer may use deadly force.”

Because no constitutional violation occurred, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Livingston v. Texas demonstrates the power of body camera footage in § 1983 litigation:

• Video trumps allegations: Under Scott v. Harris, when video evidence “blatantly contradicts” your complaint’s factual allegations, the court credits the video — not your version of events. This can end your case at the motion to dismiss stage if the court converts to summary judgment.
• Implicit conversion: When defendants attach video to a motion to dismiss and the court considers it, the motion is converted to summary judgment. You must then present your own evidence, not just pleadings.
• Deadly force: Officers who reasonably believe a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm — such as pointing a gun — may use deadly force. This is one of the clearest applications of the Graham factors.
• Practical advice: Before filing suit, obtain and carefully review all available video evidence. If body camera or dashcam footage clearly shows the officer’s version of events, it will likely be dispositive. If the footage is ambiguous, you have a much stronger case.

Key Takeaway

When body camera footage unambiguously shows a suspect pointing a gun at officers, the officers’ use of deadly force is reasonable as a matter of law — and a complaint’s allegations to the contrary will be disregarded under the Scott v. Harris standard, resulting in qualified immunity for the officers.