What is the test for qualified immunity in a civil case where a defendant improperly fastened handcuffs too tightly around a plaintiff's wrists?

Courts are not required to address the two inquiries in any particular order. Rather, courts may "exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009).

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the undersigned finds that defendants may have violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that defendants disregarded his request to loosen the restraints and that he suffered injuries because the restraints were applied too tightly. The undersigned finds that under these circumstances, no reasonable officer could believe that the application of handcuffs was lawful. See Palmer v. Anderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1436 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming the denial of qualified immunity on an excessive force claim where defendant unnecessarily fastened handcuffs so tightly around plaintiff's wrists that they caused him pain and left bruises and refused to loosen the handcuffs after plaintiff's complaint of pain). Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds that they are entitled to qualified immunity should be denied.