Anthony Foreman v. Brian Wadsworth, 844 F.3d 620

Foreman, a former Rockford restaurant owner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois tort law after prosecutor Matthew Leisten filed (and later dismissed) a charge of obstructing a police officer following Foreman’s on-premises dispute with police.
Foreman alleged the prosecutor and four police officers conspired to force him out of business by bringing false criminal charges.
The district court dismissed Foreman’s damages claims against Leisten on absolute prosecutorial immunity grounds and dismissed official-capacity claims under the Eleventh Amendment; Leisten moved for judgment on the pleadings and Foreman conceded immunity under current law but argued Imbler should be overruled.
The district court ordered Foreman’s attorney, Lawrence Redmond, to show cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for advancing claims contrary to controlling Supreme Court precedent; after objections, the court publicly censured Redmond for failing to present a nonfrivolous argument to the district court.
With prosecutors dismissed, Foreman’s remaining claims against four Rockford police officers proceeded; the district court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding probable cause to arrest Foreman; Foreman appealed the immunity and discovery rulings and Redmond appealed the censure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prosecutor (Leisten) is entitled to absolute immunity for filing charges	Foreman: Imbler was wrongly decided; prosecutors should have only qualified immunity	Leisten: Imbler controls; filing charges is protected by absolute immunity	Imbler is controlling; Leisten has absolute immunity for filing charges; dismissal affirmed
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity claims against prosecutor's office	Foreman: sought injunctive relief; Eleventh Amendment allegedly inapplicable	Leisten: Eleventh Amendment bars damages and the complaint didn’t allege ongoing violation for equitable relief	Eleventh Amendment bars the official-capacity claims; dismissal affirmed
Whether district court erred by granting summary judgment before discovery completed	Foreman: City delayed discovery; summary judgment premature	Defendants: Foreman waived review of magistrate discovery rulings and did not seek Rule 56(d) relief	Foreman waived objection to magistrate’s discovery order; failure to use Rule 56(d) fatal; summary judgment stands
Whether attorney Redmond’s public censure under Rule 11 was improper	Redmond: intended to challenge Imbler on appeal; provided argument late; order to show cause was premature	Court: counsel failed to present a nonfrivolous argument for changing law in district court and waited until too late	Censure affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion though initial show-cause was premature

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (establishes absolute immunity for prosecutors for conduct intimately associated with judicial phase, including filing charges)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (U.S. 1997) (distinguishes prosecutorial acts protected by absolute immunity from prosecutorial acts that are not, e.g., sworn statements supporting arrest warrants)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1991) (prosecutors not absolutely immune for legal advice to police during investigation)
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2012) (court relied on post-1871 authority in analyzing prosecutorial immunity)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (state officials sued in official capacity not "persons" under § 1983)
Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1988) (procedural rule on notice of appeal and parties)
Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (U.S. 2001) (amendment to Rule 3(c) prevents dismissal where intent to appeal is clear)
Olson v. Champaign County, 784 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2015) (filing a criminal charge is core prosecutorial activity entitled to immunity)
Nisenbaum v. Milwaukee County, 333 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rule 11 permits arguments challenging precedent if a nonfrivolous basis to extend, modify, or reverse is presented)