allegedly deficient investigation shock the conscience. As delineated by the First Circuit, the “conscience-shocking” requirement is extremely stringent. The First Circuit noted in Cummings v. McIntire that: [v]arious formulations have been used to identify conduct sufficiently outrageous to meet that standard, which deliberately was set high to protect the Constitution from demotion to merely “a font of tort law.” Courts have held that the acts must be such as to offend even hardened sensibilities, uncivilized and intolerable, offensive to human dignity, or must constitute force that is brutal, inhumane, or vicious. 271 F.3d 341, 344 (1st Cir.2001) (Coffin, J.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Cruz-Erazo v. Rivera-Montanez, 212 F.3d 617, 622-24 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The Plaintiffs’ allegations that Agent
holding that it was not a constitutional violation under buie for a police officer to enter the plaintiffs house after the plaintiffs arrest in the attached garage holding that plaintiffs allegations that police officers moved into plaintiffs unoccupied house without their consent broke the new locks that the plaintiffs put on their house filed unsupported charges against the plaintiffs perjured themselves in testifying against the plaintiffs and threatened physical violence against them did not sufficiently shock the conscience so as to violate substantive due process holding that because plaintiffs iied claim is based on the facts that support plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim plaintiffs iied claim did not accrue until the charges against them were dismissed holding the original notice and verified account did not substantiate plaintiffs claim and was insufficient for the court to enter a default judgment against the plaintiffs holding that inquiry notice was properly resolved as a matter of law where the sec documents themselves provided sufficient notice to plaintiffs of their claims because the documents disclosed numerous lawsuits and investigations against the company directly related to the claims plaintiffs brought against the company