4. Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because they only used “directed force.” Defendants argue that those defendants who only used force as directed by their supervisors — Deputies Sanford, Vazquez, and Delgado — are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there was a legitimate penological purpose for their actions. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs resisted cell extractions, and this necessitated use of the Tasers by the Defendants. At trial, the jury found that the deputies engaged in malicious conduct with intent to harm, including using Tasers on sensitive body parts and on unconscious individuals. These findings support Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999, 117 L.Ed.2d 156, 165 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,
holding that denial of outofcell exercise for an extended period violates the eighth amendment holding that the core judicial inquiry in resolving an eighth amendment excessive force claim is whether force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm holding that malicious or sadistic use of force with intent to harm violates the eighth amendment holding that the execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the eighth amendment holding intent to use or threaten to use force is required under  2l12bla