the denial of his Rule 50 motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, his Rule 59 motion for a new trial following an adverse jury verdict, and the granting of summary judgment to the defendant on plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff argues that the jury’s finding of qualified immunity was improper, for two reasons. He first claims that the jury’s verdicts on excessive force and qualified immunity were legally inconsistent because the jury found that defendant had acted unreasonably in using excessive force, but that defendant had reasonably believed his conduct to be lawful. The Supreme Court has made it clear, however, that these are separate questions to which differing answers can be given. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 197, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs second argument is that qualified
holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force holding that arrest was unsupported by probable cause but granting qualified immunity to defendants who made the arrest in reliance on communications with other officers holding that the ruling on qualified immunity requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making the arrest