drew blood, and resulted in a welt and two-inch cut on her leg that left a permanent scar. For the second beating, the principal struck the child on the buttocks several times with the same wooden paddle. The child struggled during the beating and hit her back on a desk. Thereafter, she was struck three additional times. She suffered from serious bruises on her buttocks which hurt for two to three weeks and back pains for several weeks. An examining physician and nurse considered the second beating severe enough to report as child abuse. In review, we held that “at some point, excessive corporal punishment violates the pupil’s substantive due process rights.” Id. at 653. Focusing on the physical harm and citing Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952) (<HOLDING>), we held that when a school official’s conduct
holding forced stomach pumping shocks the conscience and violates substantive due process recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights holding that plaintiff must allege conduct so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience in order to state substantive due process claim in context of social workers alleged interference with parents custody rights holding forcible extraction of the contents of defendants stomach shocks the conscience and violates due process