the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Pierre-Antoine, 2006 WL 1292076, at *5 (noting that although the lack of severe injury may be considered by a jury as evidence that force was not excessive, it did not entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law). Finally, the defendant officers argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity, even if the use of force was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejects this assertion — viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable officer should have known that repeatedly striking a subdued suspect violates a clearly established constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive force during arrest. See Pierre-Antoine, 2006 WL 1292076, at *6 (<HOLDING>) (citing Maxwell, 880 F.3d at 108); see also
holding that punching a nonresisting criminal suspect for no apparent reason other than malice was a violation of the suspects clearly established right to be free from excessive force during an arrest holding that repeatedly striking a subdued individual would constitute an objectively unreasonable use of force under the fourth amendment holding that a reasonable officer would have known that repeatedly punching kicking and stomping a subdued individual violated the clearly established constitutional right not to be subjected to excessive force during arrest recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force holding that in excessive force cases the threshold question for the court is whether the officers conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right