shock the conscience of the court.” Rivera, 402 F.3d at 35; Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse, 175 F.3d 68, 72 (1st Cir.1999) (“Outside of a few narrow categories, ... this means conduct that is truly outrageous, uncivilized,' and intolerable,”). “The burden to show state conduct that ‘shocks the conscience’ is extremely high, requiring ‘stunning evidence of arbitrariness and caprice’ that extends beyond ‘[m]ere violations of state law, even violations resulting from bad faith’ to ‘some thing more egregious and extreme.’ ” Melendez-Garcia v. Sanchez, 629 F.3d 25, 36 (1st Cir.2010) (quoting J.R. v. Gloria, 593 F.3d 73, 80 (1st Cir.2010)). 3d 790, 796-97 (8th Cir.1998) (finding substantive due process violation where officer raped woman in connection with car stop), with Hasenfus, 175 F.3d at 72 (<HOLDING>), and Abeyta v. Chama Valley Indep. Sch, Dist.,
holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented holding that transfer rule denying eligibility to students transferring from public to private schools did not violate the students rights to due process or equal protection of the laws as provided by the fourteenth amendment holding mentally disabled suicide victim to reasonable person standard holding that schools failure to adequately address and remediate known physical and sexual misconduct by students did not constitute an affirmative act for statecreated danger holding that schools failure to take steps to prevent students attempted suicide was not even close to violating this outrageousness standard