[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10732 ____________________

CURTIS BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF MADISON, ALABAMA, DANIEL NUNEZ, DION HOSE, Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00382-LCB ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10732 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 Page: 2 of 27

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10732

Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and HULL, Circuit Judges. HULL, Circuit Judge: In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, plaintiff Curtis Baker alleged (1) Officer Daniel Nunez used excessive force when Officer Nunez tased him at the scene of an automobile wreck, (2) Officer Dion Hose failed to intervene to prevent Officer Nunez’s excessive force, and (3) the City of Madison, Alabama admitted the officers’ actions were the result of its municipal policy. Relying on body camera footage, defendants Officer Nunez, Officer Hose, and the City moved to dismiss. The district court considered the body camera footage and granted their motions to dismiss. On appeal, Baker argues the district court erred by (1) considering the officers’ body camera footage when ruling on the defendants’ motions to dismiss without converting them into summary judgment motions, (2) granting qualified immunity to Officer Nunez, (3) dismissing Baker’s failure-to-intervene claim against Officer Hose, and (4) dismissing his municipal liability claim against the City. After careful review of the record and the briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court properly considered the body camera footage, correctly ruled that Officer Nunez did not violate a constitutional right and thus Officer Hose had no duty to intervene, and accurately determined that USCA11 Case: 22-10732 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 Page: 3 of 27

22-10732 Opinion of the Court 3

Baker’s claim against the City failed as a matter of law. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of Baker’s complaint. I. BACKGROUND A. Allegations in the Complaint In his pro se complaint, Baker alleged the following. Baker has epilepsy and sometimes has seizures. Consequently, emergency medical personnel in the City know him and know about his condition. On March 16, 2019, Baker and his friend were in a car together when they got in a “minor accident.” Paramedics arrived on the scene after the accident happened. By the time paramedics arrived, Baker was having a seizure. Officers Nunez and Hose arrived shortly thereafter. Baker was still having a seizure. Paramedics and Baker’s friend told the police “over and over again” that Baker had suffered a seizure and that he was still in the throes of that seizure. Officers Nunez and Hose “told Baker to get on a gurney and go to the hospital.” Baker declined and asked to speak to his mother. Baker’s friend advised Officers Nu