CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY; BERL PERDUE, JR. and LEE MURRAY, Individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-5143
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:15-cv-00337—Robert E. Wier, District Judge.
Argued: October 25, 2019
Decided and Filed: May 18, 2020
Before: CLAY, STRANCH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff David Jones appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants Clark County, Kentucky; Clark County Sheriff Berl Perdue; and Clark County Sheriff’s Deputy Lee Murray, in this case alleging malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE IN PART and AFFIRM IN PART the district court’s order. We REVERSE the district court’s order with respect to the grant of summary judgment and qualified immunity for Murray and REMAND the case for trial. We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting summary judgment with respect to all other Defendants.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-5156
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:17-cv-00345—Joseph M. Hood, District Judge.
Argued: October 16, 2019
Decided and Filed: May 18, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, DONALD, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Jane Doe alleges that the University of Kentucky (UK) violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 86 Stat. 373, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., by responding with deliberate indifference to her accusations of student-on-student harassment. Because Jane Doe failed to show that UK’s response subjected her to further actionable harassment that caused Title IX injuries, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MANUEL GUZMAN-VAZQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 19-3417
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;
No. A 206 154 087.
Decided and Filed: May 18, 2020
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Manuel Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for withholding of removal. Because the IJ and BIA erred in failing to give Guzman an opportunity to explain why he could not reasonably obtain certain corroborative evidence, because substantial evidence does not support the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and BIA’s determinations regarding the unavailability of evidence to corroborate Guzman’s claim about abuse by his stepfather, and because the BIA incorrectly required Guzman to demonstrate that his membership in a particular social group was “at least one central reason” for his persecution, we GRANT the petition for review, VACATE the BIA’s order, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.