You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

does not contain evidence of other exigent circumstances compelling the officers to use a greater than usual amount of force against him. Kyles was tased five times in a short time span, causing him to lose control of his muscles, spasm involuntarily, and beg for the tasing to stop. Id. 6-8. While Kyles was not pregnant, the plaintiffs pregnancy in Brooks does not appear to be a dispositive factor in the court's analysis. Moreover, according to Kyles's testimony, unlike the plaintiff in Brooks, he was not in any way resisting when the allegedly excessive .force was used against him. Kyles Depo. 4. Finally, if Kyles's version of events is proven at trial, a juror could reasonably conclude that the deployment of Xena violated clearly established law. See Watkins, 145 F.3d at 1093 (<HOLDING>); Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th
Holding statements: (A) holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis (B) holding in case where po lice dog bit plaintiff for approximately fifteen seconds in officers presence that excessive duration of the bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force (C) holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim (D) holding that in excessive force cases the threshold question for the court is whether the officers conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right (E) holding that in 1998 the law was clearly established that excessive duration of a police dog bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force
Output:
holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis