qualified immunity and the use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Whether Appellant Crum is entitled to qualified immunity for. his alleged assault on inmate Hill requires a familiar two-pronged inquiry. That inquiry requires a court to determine (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged ... or shown ... make out a violation of a constitutional right,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (internal citations omitted) (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)); and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct,” id. (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151) (<HOLDING>). A. Here, Appellant Crum has conceded that the
holding that the sequence of the saucier inquiry is not mandatory holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that the statute is mandatory holding that sauciers twostep sequence is not mandatory holding that twostep sequence is no longer an inflexible requirement