Definition: 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.
Input: 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:
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