context: Arneault seeks to make out a substantive due process claim by alleging that these state actors knowingly relied on tainted information for malicious purposes unrelated to their legitimate governmental responsibilities. However, "merely alleging an improper motive is insufficient" to establish conscience-shocking behavior, "even where the [alleged] motive is unrelated to the merits of the underlying decision."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 523 F.3d 200, 220
citation_a.parenthetical: addressing substantive due process claim in the zoning context and noting that application of the conscience-shocking standard "prevents us from being cast in the role of a 'zoning board of appeals.' "
citation_a.sentence: Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 220 (3d Cir. 2008) (addressing substantive due process claim in the zoning context and noting that application of the conscience-shocking standard “prevents us from being cast in the role of a ‘zoning board of appeals.’ ”) (citation omitted).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 776 F.Supp.2d 95, 95
citation_b.parenthetical: plaintiff failed to allege a substantive due process violation, despite claiming that defendant acted with "gross negligence"
citation_b.sentence: See also Burns, 776 F.Supp.2d at 95 (plaintiff failed to allege a substantive due process violation, despite claiming that defendant acted with “gross negligence”).