Police force on incapacitated suspects

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permits law-enforcement officers to use multiple forms of significant force—including less-lethal impact rounds, chemical agents, a police canine, and repeated physical strikes—against a suspect whom the complaint alleges was already medically incapacitated, nonthreatening, and not resisting, and whether the Fifth Circuit erred by treating the presence of an alleged medical emergency and purported noncompliance as justification for force without applying the Fourth Amendment’s totality-of-the-circumstances analysis or crediting petitioner’s well-pleaded version of disputed facts? 2. Whether, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, a court may treat an officer-authored incident report attached to a § 1983 complaint as establishing the truth of disputed factual assertions concerning resistance when the complaint expressly alleges that those assertions are false, or whether the law requires the court to accept the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations and treat the report only as evidence that officers made the challenged assertions? 3. Whether, in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion asserting qualified immunity, where discovery has not occurred and the plaintiff proffers body-worn-camera footage that materially bears on the disputed factual predicate for immunity, a court of appeals may deny supplementation or consideration of that footage and nevertheless resolve the qualified-immunity question by crediting a disputed police report over the complaint, and whether such a practice is consistent with binding and persuasive precedent and the principles governing appellate review of disputed facts?