Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
April Graham, suing individually, on behalf of Amari Thomas Graham’s estate, and as next friend of A.M.E.G., moved to defer a ruling on the City of Irving and Peter Provenzano’s pending motion to dismiss. Graham argued that the dismissal motion should be converted into a summary-judgment motion because the defendants submitted evidence from the incident, including Provenzano’s body-worn-camera footage.
The defendants contended that the court could consider the bodycam footage, Irving Police Department general orders, and Taser warnings and instructions because those materials were central to the plaintiffs’ claims and referenced in the complaint. They also submitted an autopsy report, which they characterized as a public record.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Graham’s motion to defer the dismissal ruling. It concluded that the materials attached to the defendants’ motion were not incorporated into the complaint by reference, including the bodycam footage, and exercised its discretion to exclude the outside evidence rather than convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment.
The court therefore stated that it would evaluate the motion to dismiss using the facts as pleaded and would not consider the submitted evidence at this stage. Although the court observed that the law-enforcement evidence appeared objective and compelling and might contradict the plaintiffs’ allegations, it did not resolve that factual conflict in this order.
Graham was ordered to respond to the motion to dismiss by August 14, 2026. Alternatively, the court granted leave to file an amended complaint by that date, consistent with counsel’s professional obligations.
Key Takeaways
- A complaint’s reference to bodycam footage does not necessarily incorporate that footage into the pleadings for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- When a dismissal motion includes material outside the pleadings, a district court may exclude the material instead of converting the motion into one for summary judgment.
- The court will assess the pending dismissal motion on the pleaded facts, while warning plaintiffs’ counsel that unsupported factual allegations could lead to Rule 11 sanctions later in the litigation.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the procedural limits on using bodycam footage and similar evidence at the pleading stage. Even evidence that appears objective and strongly inconsistent with a complaint may be excluded when it has not been properly incorporated into the pleadings.
The ruling does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It determines only that the dismissal motion will proceed without consideration of the defendants’ outside evidence, while placing counsel on notice of potential Rule 11 consequences if the allegations ultimately lack evidentiary support.