no contention that, at that time, plaintiff posed a threat to the officers’ safety. However, it is clear that plaintiff, at that time a suspect of a crime, attempted to evade the officers during the time the officers were conducting an investigation. Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat to affect it. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22-27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Plaintiff acknowledges that she was instructed by the officers that she was not going anywhere pending their investigation of Mr. Serrano’s complaint. Yet, when she believed that a friend ha at the force with which Livengood tackled plaintiff was excessive. Id. (<HOLDING>). Livengood used that amount of force necessary
holding that there was evidence of grossly excessive force where the defendant shot the victim once in the arm and then in the base of the skull holding that fact that plaintiffs arm was broken during tackle did not constitute excessive force holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims 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