Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1308 (11th Cir.2001) (discussing § 1983 liability for a municipality based on “governmental ‘custom’ ”). Therefore, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Count VII is also due to be affirmed. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 1 . Hawk filed a motion to dismiss Klaetsch with prejudice after Klaetsch filed a petition in bankruptcy court. 2 . Only two of the incidents cited by Hawk involve tasers, and none of them recount the actual tasing of an arrestee. And although all three incidents recount aggressive arrests by Klaetsch, this circuit requires something more to transform aggressive force into excessive force. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Nolin v. Isbell, 207 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (11th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where an officer grabbed plaintiffs arm twisted it around plaintiffs back jerking it up high to the shoulder and then handcuffing the plaintiff as plaintiff fell to his knees screaming did not constitute excessive force (B) holding that fact that plaintiffs arm was broken during tackle did not constitute excessive force (C) holding that there was evidence of grossly excessive force where the defendant shot the victim once in the arm and then in the base of the skull (D) 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 (E) holding that officers knocking the plaintiff to the ground rolling him over and pinning him with their knees on his neck back and legs so he could be handcuffed did not constitute excessive force and noting that the plaintiffs offer to return to custody after his escape attempt did not eliminate the need for force
Output (English): holding that officers knocking the plaintiff to the ground rolling him over and pinning him with their knees on his neck back and legs so he could be handcuffed did not constitute excessive force and noting that the plaintiffs offer to return to custody after his escape attempt did not eliminate the need for force