case that squarely presents the question of how much force can police officers use when effectuating an arrest what makes this case somewhat different from most is that it's undisputed in this case that the arrestee mr ketchum never should have been arrested he was mistaken for a person for whom there was a misdemeanor arrest warrant and the police officers with that warrant rather  than go and speak to the person who they thought might be the person they were looking for immediately resorted to force throwing mr ketchum up against the fence tightly handcuffing him i'm a little after and we do raise the issue of apparent bias in in this appeal but after the free motion conference where we did issue with judge for study i wasn't fully shocked by what we saw but it certainly is unusual that in a summary judgment decision the court would start with the account of the moving party and then say and by the way the nonpublic party has a different recollection of those of these facts that fence and but he had just been bumped and there was a policy given and he actually there was no basis for him to be arrested at all as i guess all seem to agree that was just a mistake would that still be enough to support a constitutional claim such as the one you brought well i will say just carney i i think that it's difficult when you're on to use the word bumps because we've had so much of a sort of debate over language hitting bumping slamming you know what distinguishes one of those from from the other is difficult to say i think what this court's precedents make clear is that the gratuitous use of force that causes injury and pain is a form of injury as this course this court has recognized i don't think they've squarely addressed that in the th amendment except the th context but in other contexts  court has said pain satisfies the injury requirement that it meets the constitutional threshold where gratuitous force is applied then yes that there does not need to be lasting injury to sustain a claim for excessive for and here we have both the shoving of the appellant's head into the police car which certainly was interpreted as stop mouth off to us you know sort of retaliatory strike but we also have the handcuffing injurious and this court does have a specific set of precedents with respect and cuffing injuries which i do think bears mentioning because both the district court and my adversary acknowledged that the key question in handcuffing cases is whether the officers had reason to know that the handcuffs were applied excessively tightly either because it was paraffin the circumstances or because the person complain that they were too tight and while the district court acknowledged that that start well while my adversary acknowledged that mr ketchum did complain that the handcuffs were too tight he doesn't actually contend with that and arrest that they thought they were supposed to be making when they when they made it and there is not a clearly established standard privy you know with regard to exactly how tight the handcuffs would be how much they need to be to defeat qualified immunity there does not need to be a case directly on point to present the exact same set of facts and finds force to be excessive you know there are many  ultimately yes what i'm saying what i'm arguing is that both questions the questions of of excessive force and the question of qualified immunity rise or fall with the disputed factual issues and the facts are sharply in dispute in th  so finally i would just like to to address the bias issue and it's you know asking this court to exercise its discretion to reassign the case on  a remedy that i've ever sought before in my career it's not one that i sought lightly i think i was particularly and i certainly know my client was particularly taken aback not only by the presentation of facts in the summary judgment decision but by the somewhat gratuitous commentary by the district court about your client's got your client got his feelings hurt which was striking to me not only because it's word for word a way that mr quinn describes my client's case to me on a number of  occasions but it is frankly patronizing and rather insulting way to characterize what you know complained to presents as a serious abuse arrest the thirty and the and the authority to time again this court has recognized in many courts of recognized that excessive force claims can give rise to a nominal damages award for example so the extent of injury and long lasting injury has never been the bellwether of whether a claim is state agrees to that and place them in a car where a after a few minutes plaintiff identified himself from these now you're asking about the court adopting the recitation of the offices but frankly judge i don't read the the officers got out of the car it pushed him against the fence they handcuffed him and put him in a car and that the entire incident last anywhere between four and seven minutes plaintiff is the only one who identifies any level of injury point frankly there are not in this case he claims at least in his deposition he claims that as the car his head hit the car now that has morphed from slammed into the car shoved into the car but that was not not what he swore to and if you look at page deposition he describes how he was rear handcuffed and as they were placing him in the car he hit his head but there's no injury in fact he never even looked for an injury never checked his head after the arrest to see whether or not he  and that there was injury anything else on all three let me explain the officers and as judge for said he found his decision recognizing a record of a sexual crime and he was he and cut he says at one point plaintiff passed by and everyone agrees that he was only in handcuffs or between two or three minutes and finally there is no legitimate or not real injury he said he had some broken skin he does not add it doesn't take an aspirin he doesn't i say this politely he's not unusual looking by his very thin arms he was wearing glasses he has a bald head and he looked remarkably like the individual in the photograph and there was an arrest warrant for that individual provide that as a former warm force one officer three things clued him into the fact that these were actually police officers he saw the shield around and that he saw fit to make and model of the gun on the hip and they applied what they call an orm bar and this plane of had trained federal probation officers in the application of that very same handcuffing technique so he recognized that there was a good chance that these were police officers in charge there's there's a difference between resisting arrest and noncompliance and in this case it's very easy to recur the plane was noncompliant through the entire episode because even he admitted mommy being placed into the car that he was still screaming at people to call my will want call help call objective i understand that but again that goes to force arrested doesn't go to excessive force and the officers had a warrant for a person that matched the description plate of matched the description of the person they were looking for so they  every right to take him into custody so the only question here is whether or not the use of force was objective really reasonable and it's clear that while and nobody's has alleged that plaintiff resisted arrest it is clear from the record that he was not compliant in the process i keep in mind he also refused to identify himself and it had he said at the very be outset as they approached him and put him against the fence if he said i'm a federal probation officer can guarantee things would turn differently but issue goes to whether or not the officers use of force was object to be reasonable and i would suggest your honor there is nothing in this record to suggest that was not and that is why charge for said he found it he didn't simply rely on the lack of injury in determining whether or not there was excessive force or no excessive force for instance as they did in horror as he gives on the district court level which this court  corrected and said that's not a basis to say that's not an excessive force to judge her sadi went through the entire analysis and st he said that it was object that we reasonable because there has to be a level of force used when making an  three to four minute interaction or at most seven minute interaction where a person is taken into custody there is no claim of false arrest and whatnot of bodies released he's handcuffed momentarily two or three minutes suffers cigarettes versus yes yeah i could could you focus on exactly where are the factual like like three factual disputes that are relevant to the excessive force claim as opposed to the abandoned false imprisonment claim what are the officers whether he was attempting to evade arrest evade arrest the another direct quote from judge or said his opinion whether he tried pushing past the officers again something taken directly from the officers version and directly contradicted by mr ketchum and finally judge for saturday's conclusion that mr ketchum inadvertently bumped his head on the side of the car when he clearly testified that an officer took his hands put it on the side of mr costin's head and shoved it into the side of the car all of those are factual disputes that judge for study improperly decided in favor of the movement and what about with