to resist arrest, when Trooper Nolan grabbed her and handcuffed her, and Trooper Weilminster ran over to assist in putting the handcuffs on. While Trooper Nolan pulled Plaintiff from her car, both State Defendants placed handcuffs on her, and Plaintiff testified that both held her to the ground while handcuffing her and escorted her back to the police car. (50-h Tr. 48:15-49:5; PI. Dep. 118:3-12.) While it is undisputed that Plaintiffs handcuffs were removed as soon as she requested them to be, complaining that they were too tight, there are sufficient disputes as to the other facts surrounding her arrest, removal from her car, and handcuffing. These persistent disputes of fact make summary judgment on Plaintiffs excessive force claim inappropriate. Lemmo, 2011 WL 4592785, at *8 (<HOLDING>); Arum v. Miller, 331 F.Supp.2d 99, 110
holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances holding that whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary or was the product of duress or coercion express or implied is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances holding that under the totality of the circumstances plaintiffs claim that his handcuffs were tightened along with related physical force was enough to create a question of fact for the jury