qualified immunity on Kounelis’s excessive force claim. Since the Court has discretion over whether to consider new arguments raised in a reply brief, see Laborers’ Int’l Union v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir.1994), and since Defendants’ arguments for qualified immunity, even if considered, would likely prove fruitless, as all of the rights allegedly violated by Defendants were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, the Court has limited its qualified immunity analysis to Kounelis's excessive force claim. 12 . As noted in the September 5, 2005 opinion, Kounelis's § 1983 claim for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights against Sergeant James rests on a correction officer’s duty to intervene. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 650 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Sergeant James, however, has not moved for
holding that plaintiff failed to state a  1983 claim based on the eighth amendment when he refused to be treated medically in the presence of corrections officers on the grounds that he was not entitled to receive medical treatment in complete privacy holding that a corrections officers failure to intervene in a beating can be a basis of liability for an eighth amendment violation under  1983 if the corrections officer had a reasonable opportunity to do so holding that a jury could find that the department of corrections owed a duty to a social worker killed in her apartment by an inmate she once counseled in a prison holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment holding that individual liability under  1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation