With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (9th Cir.1991) (as amended) (testimony of plaintiffs' police practices expert that officers violated law enforcement standards properly received). Considering the severity and extent of the force used, the three basic Graham factors, and the availability of other means of accomplishing the arrest, it is evident that the question whether the force used here was reasonable is a matter that cannot be resolved in favor of the defendants on summary judgment. Although only Smith’s account of the facts matters for our analysis, on both accounts of the arrest, Smith did not attack the officers; indeed at no time did he even threaten to attack any of them, or their dog. Smith asserts that his failure to uncurl his arm from under his body was a reasonable effort to protect him (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th

A: 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
B: holding that ordering police officers to use excessive force in bringing a lawyer into court was a judicial act
C: holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis
D: holding that excessive force claims are not subject to exhaustion requirement
C.