Joseph Ferguson v. Ryan McDonough, 13 F.4th 574

On July 9, 2018 Officer Ryan McDonough responded to a domestic-disturbance report; he observed injuries and collected a knife reported to have been used by Joseph Ferguson.
McDonough followed Ferguson’s car, ordered him to stay in the vehicle, then attempted to arrest him beside the car; a physical tussle occurred, Ferguson’s hoodie/t-shirt/hat were removed, and Ferguson’s pants fell down.
McDonough deployed his taser once; Ferguson fell and was handcuffed; Ferguson later sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force (Fourth Amendment).
At summary judgment the district court denied McDonough qualified-immunity relief, concluding the dashcam video was ambiguous and a reasonable jury could find Ferguson was not actively resisting at the moment of the tasing.
McDonough appealed, arguing the dashcam conclusively shows active resistance and thus he is entitled to qualified immunity; the circuit must decide whether it has jurisdiction under the narrow video exception (i.e., whether the video "utterly discredits" the district court’s factual finding).
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the dashcam and held it did not utterly discredit the district court’s factual determination; the court therefore dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, leaving factual resolution (and any subsequent qualified-immunity ruling) for the district court/trier of fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McDonough’s tasing violated the Fourth Amendment (i.e., was Ferguson actively resisting at the tasing moment)	Ferguson: he was not actively resisting and surrendered with hands up; tasing was excessive	McDonough: video shows Ferguson was actively resisting and arguing; tasing was reasonable	The video is ambiguous; the court cannot resolve the factual dispute on interlocutory appeal, so it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (jury must decide)
Whether McDonough is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established	Ferguson: law clearly forbids significant force against non- or passively resisting subjects	McDonough: no closely analogous precedent put him on notice; immunity should apply	Court declined to decide because it lacked jurisdiction (resolution depends on disputed facts); left for later proceedings
Whether the dashcam "utterly discredits" the district court so the collateral-order exception permits immediate appeal	Ferguson: video does not conclusively show lack of resistance; genuine factual dispute remains	McDonough: video conclusively shows active resistance, so appellate review is proper	Court: video does not "utterly discredit" the district court’s view; the narrow video exception is unmet, so appeal dismissed

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video can irrefutably discredit a plaintiff’s version of events and permit immediate appellate resolution)
Dockery v. Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458 (booking-room video utterly discredited plaintiff’s account; officers entitled to immunity)
Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445 (explains narrow video exception to interlocutory review of qualified immunity denials)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (orders denying qualified immunity are not immediately appealable to the extent they turn on factual disputes)
Abbott v. Sangamon Cnty., 705 F.3d 706 (circuit guidepost: significant force like a Taser cannot be used on nonresisting or passively resisting subjects)
Alicea v. Thomas, 815 F.3d 283 (clearly established that significant force on passive resistors is excessive)
Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822 (prior resistance does not justify significant force against a subsequently passive suspect)
Strand v. Minchuk, 910 F.3d 909 (reasonableness turns on whether arrestee posed a threat at the exact moment force was used)
Becker v. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920 (noncompliance alone does not necessarily amount to active resistance; context matters)