Federal Judiciary

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Billy S. Jeffries appeals the district court?s denial of his petition for habeas corpus seeking to overturn his conviction for murder and attempted rape based on evidence discovered subsequent to trial that implicates another person, John Dillon, in the crime. The issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in holding that: (1) upholding the Kentucky Supreme Court?s decision that the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support a conviction; (2) affirming the Kentucky Court of Appeals? decision that the Commonwealth?s failure to turn over the limited information it had about Dillon to the defense did not give rise to a Brady v. Maryland claim; and (3) denying as moot Jeffries? motion to expand the record and compel the Commonwealth to produce the transcripts of the trial. We now find that the district court erred in denying Jeffries? motion to expand the record. Therefore, we VACATE the district court?s denial of habeas corpus, REVERSE the denial of Jeffries? motion to expand the record, and REMAND with instructions that the district court review the entire available record in assessing Jeffries? petition.

DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. This case arises from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claim filed by two Ohio community schools, Greater Heights Academy and W.C. Cupe Community School (?Appellants?), against three Ohio public officials, Dr. Susan Tave Zelman, Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Paulo A. DeMaria, Associate Superintendent for the Center for School Finance of the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), and Todd L. Hanes, Director of ODE?s Office of Community Schools (collectively, ?Appellees?). Appellants sought injunctive relief consisting of a prayer for the receipt of state educational funds pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 3314.08 and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the denial of funding. Concluding that community schools are political subdivisions and barred from asserting Fourteenth Amendment claims against state officials, the district court dismissed Appellants? suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The sole issue on appeal is whether Appellants are political subdivisions that therefore cannot invoke the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment against the state of Ohio.