Appellant asserts that action was needed to restore order to the holding cell area. In his deposition testimony, Pinkins stated that he ordered Rankin from the holding cell in order to squelch the disruptive activity. R. 523. He further testified that Appellee's hostile motions necessitated a forceful response. Needless to say, Appellee paints a different picture of this encounter, and offers evidence in support of his contentions. This factor, along with
Hudson 's third and fourth components (the relationship between the need and force used, and the threat reasonably perceived by Pinkins), are dependent on a fact-sensitive inquiry and credibility determinations. Because we must draw factual inferences in the nonmovant's favor, we agree with the district court that summary judgment is not a proper vehicle for the resolution of these disputed issues. As for the final
Hudson factor, another officer did order Rankin removed from Pinkins' control, after he observed Pinkins shove Rankin—who by this time was handcuffed—into the cement wall a second time. While this did “temper the severity of a forceful response,” it tends to indicate that, initially at least, unnecessary force may have been used against Appellee.