Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. Coburn, 473 F.3d 650, 659 (6th Cir.2007); Shreve v. Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Court, 453 F.3d 681, 687 (6th Cir.2006); Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768, 783-84 (6th Cir.2006)). When applying the Sixth Circuit’s three-part test for the entitlement to qualified immunity, the Court finds that Melendez, Randazzo, nor Dotter satisfy the test. With respect to Defendant Melendez, the Sixth Circuit has specifically noted that “ ‘there undoubtedly is a clearly established legal norm precluding the use of violent physical force against a criminal suspect who already has been subdued and does not present a danger to himself or others.’ ” Meirthew, 417 Fed.Appx. at 499 (quoting Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 367 (6th Cir.2009)); see also Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 302 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1104, 123 S.Ct. 866, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force (B) holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station (C) holding that a police officers tackling of a handcuffed suspect hitting him in the face twice and banging his head on the floor three times was unconstitutional (D) holding that when plaintiff a suspect was shown officers credentials and ordered into a police car and plaintiff decided to run running after and tackling plaintiff was not constitutionally excessive (E) holding that a showup identification was valid even though the suspect was handcuffed
Output (English): holding that when plaintiff a suspect was shown officers credentials and ordered into a police car and plaintiff decided to run running after and tackling plaintiff was not constitutionally excessive