## Facts

- Erik Redwood was convicted of battery in Illinois state court and later blamed his defense lawyer, Harvey Cato Welch, for ineffective assistance; Welch refused to provide an affidavit admitting inadequate representation.
- Redwood publicly insulted Welch with language Welch viewed as racially derogatory; after a later use of the term, a scuffle occurred.
- Redwood sued Welch in Illinois state court for battery; Welch counterclaimed for defamation and sought criminal prosecution of Redwood.
- Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Dobson pursued a hate-crime charge based on Redwood’s speech and the ensuing confrontation; a grand jury indicted Redwood.
- Marvin Ira Gerstein, representing Welch in the civil suit, suggested that if the civil litigation resolved, he would try to persuade Dobson to dismiss the criminal charge; the Redwoods rejected the proposal.
- The civil case settled; the criminal case was later dismissed because the Illinois hate-crime statute was held inapplicable to speech that did not threaten immediate physical injury.
- The Redwoods filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against Dobson, Welch, Gerstein, and others, alleging First Amendment violations and a conspiracy to maintain a malicious prosecution.
- During discovery, plaintiffs’ counsel questioned Gerstein extensively about prior criminal/disciplinary history and personal matters (including sexual orientation); defense counsel repeatedly instructed Gerstein not to answer without asserting privilege or obtaining a protective order, and the deposition became hostile and unproductive.
- The district court denied sanctions (finding “everyone had behaved badly,” with plaintiffs’ counsel the “worst offender”), granted summary judgment to defendants on federal claims, and resolved remaining state-law claims on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether Dobson was absolutely immune from § 1983 damages for initiating and maintaining the hate-crime prosecution.
2. Whether the evidence supported § 1983 and § 1985 liability based on an alleged conspiracy to maintain a malicious prosecution.
3. Whether alleged unethical or coercive litigation conduct by private attorneys could be remedied through federal civil-rights claims.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by resolving state-law claims on the merits after disposing of the federal claims.
5. Whether the district court erred in denying sanctions for deposition misconduct, and whether appellate discipline was warranted.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for all defendants on the federal claims.
- Held Dobson was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for core prosecutorial acts, including seeking an indictment and maintaining the prosecution.
- Held the Redwoods failed to produce evidence of an actionable conspiracy or federal malicious-prosecution claim under §§ 1983 or 1985.
- Affirmed the district court’s decision to retain and decide the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction.
- Affirmed denial of sanctions, but formally censured/admonished multiple attorneys for conduct unbecoming members of the bar and condemned deposition abuse by both sides.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages under § 1983 for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, including initiating and pursuing prosecution.
- § 1983 and § 1985 conspiracy claims require evidence of an agreement and joint action to violate federal rights; speculation or ordinary settlement-related communications are insufficient.
- Federal civil-rights statutes are not a general mechanism for policing attorney ethics or incivility; professional misconduct is ordinarily addressed through disciplinary processes and applicable state-law remedies.
- In depositions, counsel may instruct a witness not to answer only for limited, recognized reasons (e.g., privilege, enforcing a court-ordered limitation, or seeking to terminate/limit the deposition); counsel also must avoid irrelevant, harassing questioning.
- After federal claims are resolved, a district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to retain and decide related state-law claims, particularly when the case is advanced and facts overlap.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal of the Redwoods’ federal civil-rights claims because the prosecutor was absolutely immune and the record did not support a federal conspiracy or malicious-prosecution theory, while also affirming discretionary resolution of state-law claims and condemning deposition misconduct through appellate censure rather than case-dispositive sanctions.


Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2007)