of material fact in Robinson’s favor at the summary judgment stage. See Tolan, 134 S.Ct. at 1866. Viewing the evidence most favorably to Tatum, Robinson unreasonably used excessive force by choking him. B. As of April 29, 2014, it was clearly established that a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by uses of force like Robinson’s. See Chambers, 641 F.3d at 907-08 (establishing it violates Fourth Amendment to kick and choke restrained, non-resisting suspect even if the kicking and choking causes only de minimis injuries); Krout, 583 F.3d at 566 (“It was clearly established that the use of this type of gratuitous force against a suspect who is handcuffed, not resisting, and fully subdued is objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”); Henderson, 439 F.3d at 503 (<HOLDING>). These cases put the question of the
holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding use of pepper spray on a suspect who was subdued and restrained with handcuffs may have been a gratuitous and completely unnecessary act of violence and thus violated hendersons fourth amendment rights internal quotation marks omitted holding that the act of slamming  is objectively sufficiently serious to state a claim for relief under the eighth amendment alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted