for the proposition that while “children sent to public school are lawfully confined to the classroom, arbitrary corporal punishment represents an invasion of personal security to which their parents do not consent when entrusting the educational mission to the State.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). In reliance on Ingraham, the Ninth Circuit, as well as a number of other circuits, held that excessive and unreasonable corporal punishment of public school students violates the students’ constitutional rights. See Koch, 96 F.3d at 1304 (concluding that teacher’s use of excessive force with high school students in 1990 and 1991 violated plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights); see also Metzger v. Osbeck, 841 F.2d 518, 520 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Wise v. Pea Ridge Sch. Dist., 855 F.2d 560,
holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding excessive force in public school context is a violation of substantive due process guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution holding that a state defendant has a sixth amendment right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendments due process clause to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment