Charles Johnson, Jr. v. City of Atlanta, 107 F.4th 1292

Charles Johnson, Jr. sued Officer Garrett Rolfe and the City of Atlanta for injuries suffered during a DUI arrest, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia state law.
Johnson claimed Rolfe used unnecessary force when arresting him (breaking his collarbone), and that the City was liable under Monell for failing to address a pattern of misconduct.
Rolfe filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings referencing his bodycam and dashcam footage, which contradicted Johnson’s complaint and showed Johnson resisting arrest.
The City moved to dismiss for failure to plead facts supporting a municipal custom or policy under Monell.
The district court granted both motions, relying on video evidence not referenced in the complaint, finding Rolfe entitled to qualified and official immunity and no Monell liability.
Johnson appealed, challenging the use of the video evidence and the grant of immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Can the court consider video evidence not mentioned in the complaint under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine?	The videos are not a written instrument and not referenced in the complaint, so should not be considered.	The videos are central to the claims and undisputed, so they are properly considered.	Yes; if central to the claim and undisputed, such evidence may be considered, even if not referenced in the complaint.
Did Rolfe use excessive force (and thus violate constitutional rights)?	Rolfe’s tackle was unreasonable and caused injury; force was excessive under the circumstances.	Force was objectively reasonable given Johnson’s resistance and circumstances; no excessive force.	No excessive force; force used was objectively reasonable, so no constitutional violation occurred.
Was Rolfe entitled to qualified immunity on federal claims?	Qualified immunity is inappropriate because constitutional rights were violated.	Qualified immunity applies due to absence of excessive force and thus no violation.	Rolfe is entitled to qualified immunity as no constitutional violation occurred.
Was Rolfe entitled to official immunity on state-law claims?	Rolfe deliberately intended to injure Johnson, so immunity shouldn't apply.	No intent to injure or malice—force was not malicious.	Rolfe is entitled to official immunity; no intent to injure Johnson.

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires a policy or custom causing the injury)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (totality of the circumstances must be considered in use of force cases)
Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (qualified immunity and excessive force analysis in police conduct)
Durruthy v. Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080 (tackling an arrestee to the ground does not automatically constitute excessive force)