after being placed on the ground, so there was no reason for Officer Frost to place his knee on her back. Pl.’s Opp. at 13. In light of Officer Frost’s prior experience with plaintiffs attempts to escape custody, it was reasonable for him to believe that he needed to use some other part of his body to hold her down while using both of his hands to handcuff her. In that context, pushing his knee over her left arm and onto her back was not an excessive use of force. It is true that at the time Officer Frost placed his knee on plaintiffs back, she was already being restrained by two other officers. But that does not make Officer Frost’s actions unreasonable because plaintiff had managed to escape the grip of multiple officers earlier during the encounter. See Scott, 101 F.3d at 759-60 (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals has upheld the use of
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 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 where an officer grabbed plaintiffs arm twisted it around plaintiffs back jerking it up high to the shoulder and then handcuffing the plaintiff as plaintiff fell to his knees screaming did not constitute excessive force holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim 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