deployed Tasers at sensitive body parts and for unnecessary amounts of time in a fashion intended to cause pain. Defendants cite recent eases granting qualified immunity to officers who used Tasers in which courts held that Taser usage was not “clearly established.” However, the cases cited are distinguishable because, in those cases, the officers were not using Tasers with the purpose of inflicting pain. E.g. Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc); Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir.2010). The Court finds that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove that Defendants violated clearly established law by maliciously using a Taser as an instrument to inflict harm and corporal punishment. See Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Court therefore finds that Defendants
holding that second element of qualified immunity test is whether the law violated was clearly established holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity holding that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had