Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): through conscience-shocking behavior.” Estate of Bennett v. Wainwright, 548 F.3d 155, 162 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Clark v. Boscher, 514 F.3d 107, 112 (1st Cir.2008)). The plaintiffs base their Fourteenth Amendment claim on the deprivation of Colon-Andino’s liberty and the seizure of his property resulting from a fabricated prosecution against him. Together, members of the Puerto Rico Police Department fabricated an entire case against Colon-Andino, conduct which plaintiffs believe shocks the conscience. These are the same factual allegations made in support of the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, analyzed above. The Supreme Court has held that “because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of 249, 256 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (internal citation omitted). The civil actions 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution (B) holding that there is no due process right to appellate review (C) holding the same for malicious prosecution (D) holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists (E) holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person
Output (English): holding that there is no due process right to appellate review