that the implemented force was not excessive;” and still conclude that any force used under the circumstances was inappropriate under the circumstances (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Under the totality of the circumstances, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the force used by State Defendants was excessive. According to Plaintiff, she was sitting peacefully in her car and not at 2004) (denying the defendant’s summary judgment motion on an excessive force claim for handcuffing where there were disputes of fact as to whether handcuffing was warranted where the plaintiff was only arrested for “minor violations”); Gonzalez v. City of New York, No. 98-CV-3084, 2000 WL 516682, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2000) (<HOLDING>). The Court denies State Defendants’ motion for
holding that an officers use of force against a plaintiff was objectively reasonable considering the force the plaintiff herself exercised in resisting police custody holding that the plaintiff who was undisputedly not resisting arrest was dragged to the front of the police car slammed against the hood of the vehicle and forcibly handcuffed  and placed in very tight handcuffs even though they were quickly adjusted raised an issue of fact for the jury whether the force used against him was excessive holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force holding that police seizure of weapon in plain view even though appellant was handcuffed and under the control of the officers was lawful because there were other occupants in the house who were not handcuffed and who would have had access to the weapon holding that officers who put decedent in handcuffs and leg restraints and placed him in a police car with his head between the front and rear seats in such a manner that decedent was unable to adequately breath did not use excessive force under the circumstances