removed the handcuffs as soon as Plaintiff requested they be removed. (State Def. Mem. 17.) Defendants argue that the use of handcuffs was appropriate given the circumstances, particularly because the handcuffing of arrestees is standard procedure and the handcuffs were removed after approximately five minutes, as soon as Plaintiff requested they be removed. (State Def. Reply Mem. 6.) State Defendants also argue that the photographs taken at the State Police barracks shortly after the incident show no injuries, and merely minor reddening of the skin on her wrists and insider her elbow, which Plaintiff had described as resulting from contact with the air bag during the impact. (State Def. Mem. 17.) Viewing the facts in the light most favor 009 WL 2226105, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2009) (<HOLDING>); Davenport v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No.
holding that officers knocking the plaintiff to the ground rolling him over and pinning him with their knees on his neck back and legs so he could be handcuffed did not constitute excessive force and noting that the plaintiffs offer to return to custody after his escape attempt did not eliminate the need for force holding in an excessive force suit there can be no doubt that the police officer defendant was acting in his discretionary capacity when he arrested plaintiff holding that tightening handcuffs  to their maximum for apparently gratuitous reasons along with kneeing the plaintiff in his back could be excessive force holding that purposely tripping the plaintiff while he was being escorted in handcuffs  causing him to fall to the floor and cut his face could be excessive force holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment