With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as viewing Caldwell’s allegations in a light most favorable to him, the court concludes that a reasonable trier of fact may conclude that Caldwell has set forth claims of excessive force with respect to the incidents of February 18, 2009, March 11, 2009, April 15, 2009, and May 27, 2009. As a result, the court will deny the motion to dismiss as to these incidents. However, with respect to the incident of May 26, 2009, it cannot be said that the actions taken by Defendant Officer Bleich on that date rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The fact that on that date Defendant Officer Bleich punched Caldwell once in the back of the head is not the type of condition which rises to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Reyes v. Chinnici, 54 Fed. Appx. 44, 47 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Vaughn, No. 91-2198, 1992 WL 82310,

A: 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
B: holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act
C: holding officers punch of an inmate was not excessive force
D: holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims
C.