108 (“[W]e have permitted a plaintiffs claim to survive summary judgment on allegations that, during the course of an arrest, a police officer twisted her arm, ‘yanked’ her, and threw her up against a car, causing only bruising.”) (citing Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 924-25 (2d Cir. 1987)); Robison, 821 F.2d at 924 (“If the force used was unreasonable and excessive, the plaintiff may recover even if the injuries inflicted were not permanent or severe.”). Although a jury may consider the lack of serious injury as evidence that the implemented force was not excessive, and may weigh it against the testimony of plaintiff and her mother, it does not entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law b ps v. City of Indianapolis, No. 02-CV-1912, 2004 WL 1146489, at *1 (S.D.Ind. May 10, 2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. Fields, No. 95-CV-8374,
holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a claim for a constitutional deprivation but that the contours of the right at issue were not clearly established and that official was therefore entitled to qualified immunity holding that repeated and unnecessary kicks and blows to complaint suspects lying on the ground in handcuffs would constitute violations of clearly established constitutional law holding that clearly established law is construed as supreme court or tenth circuit decisions on point or the clearly established weight of authority from other courts holding that plaintiff is obliged to present facts that if true would constitute violation of clearly established law holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right