Patrick Dockery v. Sherrie Blackburn, 911 F.3d 458

Dockery was arrested after a domestic incident and taken to the Joliet PD for booking; security‑camera and Taser body‑camera footage recorded the booking‑room encounter.
During fingerprinting Dockery became confrontational; officers attempted to handcuff him and a struggle ensued in which Dockery fell, kicked, and resisted.
Sergeant Blackburn deployed her Taser once (probe or drive‑stun/three‑point mode disputed) and then fired additional times as Dockery continued to resist and attempt to stand; the episode from first shock to handcuffing was under one minute.
Dockery sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and related state claims; the magistrate judge denied qualified immunity for the officers on the excessive‑force claim, allowing it to proceed.
On interlocutory appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed only legal questions (not genuine‑fact disputes) because the video conclusively contradicted Dockery’s account in key respects.
The court held that, viewing the objectively reasonable‑officer standard against the video, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and directed the district court to enter judgment for them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether first Taser use was excessive	Dockery: he was not actively resisting when first shocked	Officers: Dockery was kicking/flailing and actively resisting handcuffing	First Taser use was objectively reasonable; qualified immunity applies
Whether subsequent Taser uses were excessive	Dockery: after first shock he was incapacitated or involuntarily convulsing, so further shocks were excessive	Officers: Dockery continued to resist—pulled prong, sat up, aimed arm, attempted to stand—so additional shocks were necessary	Subsequent shocks were reasonable given continued resistance; qualified immunity applies
Whether video evidence permits appellate review of qualified immunity denial	Dockery: video can be interpreted to support his version; factual disputes preclude review	Officers: video conclusively shows resistance, raising pure legal question for appeal	Video conclusively contradicted Dockery on key points, so court had jurisdiction to decide as a matter of law
Whether any clearly established law foreclosed the officers’ conduct	Dockery: lack of identical precedent is outweighed by egregiousness; conduct beyond debate	Officers: no clearly established law prohibited Taser use against active resistance; reasonable mistake protected	No clearly established precedent made their conduct unlawful; qualified immunity applies

Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (distinguishing reviewable legal questions from nonreviewable fact‑sufficiency rulings)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can conclusively resolve objective‑reasonableness question)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (appellate review of qualified immunity allowed where video supports legal ruling)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective‑reasonableness factors for force claims)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (Taser use against active resistors generally reasonable; limits where suspect is subdued)
Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664 (kicking/flailing as active resistance supporting Taser use)
Brooks v. City of Aurora, 653 F.3d 478 (use of force where suspect has not submitted may be reasonable)