responsible for the alleged deprivation. Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204 (internal citations omitted); Collins, 503 U.S. at 120, 112 S.Ct. 1061. A. Claims against the Individual Defendants Brice claims that Camacho violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force when Camacho’s weapon discharged during the course of Brice’s arrest. He also maintains a state-created danger claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment against Camacho and the other individual defendants. 1. Excessive Force Claim (3d Cir.1998) (stating that an excessive force claim requires police action demonstrating an objective intent to effectuate a seizure but that the seizure need not occur through the specific means intended to bring it about); In re City of Phila. Litig., 49 F.3d 945, 974 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Negligent, accidental, or unintentional
holding that whether error is apparent is determined by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided holding that a judgment is construed like other written documents and that the intent of the court is determined by viewing the document as a whole holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that the existence of a seizure is determined by whether an individuals movement is restricted by means implemented with the intent to produce that result holding that whether an association has made service available is determined based on the existence of facilities on or in the proximity of the location to be served