Officer Kaiser had no involvement in the safe cell, but that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he was an integral participant in the linescan room events. The district court also properly determined that Officer Vazquez may have been an integral participant in the linescan room. Neither the video evidence nor Officer Vazquez’s own affidavit resolved whether he entered the linescan room with enough time to participate in the tasering or the strikes. We cannot say that the district court erred in applying the integral participation doctrine to Officer Hanlon for his wrist lock of Atencio, because his wrist lock was instrumental in controlling Aten-cio, which allowed the other officers to commit the excessive force against him. See Blankenhorn, 485 F.3d at 481 n.12 (<HOLDING>). However, the district court erred in denying
recognizing excessively tight handcuffing constitutes excessive force holding that officer was liable as an integral participant for his help in handcuffing plaintiff because it was instrumental in the officers gaining control of him which culminated in excessive force holding officers punch of an inmate was not excessive force holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since  951 requirements were satisfied holding in an excessive force suit there can be no doubt that the police officer defendant was acting in his discretionary capacity when he arrested plaintiff