fact remain regarding additional information that Officer Cox may have had at the time he made the arrest, which could affect the determination of whether Cox is entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, the Court will deny Defendant Cox’s claim for qualified immunity, and deny summary judgment to Cox on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim for unlawful arrest in Count I. b. Defendant Cox: Excessive Force Plaintiff claims that Cox injured her during the course of placing handcuffs on her. The right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from excessive force by the state is clearly established. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 888 F.2d at 901; Holt v. Artis, 843 F.2d 242, 246 (6th Cir.1988); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (<HOLDING>). Beyond the general principle, the “contours
holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding that claims that law enforcement officials used excessive force in making an arrest are properly analyzed under the fourth amendments objective reasonableness standard holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment holding that graham v connor clearly establishes the general proposition that the use of force is contrary to the fourth amendment if it is excessive under objective standards of reasonableness